News Will past personal issues affect Obama's 2012 campaign?

  • Thread starter Thread starter WhoWee
  • Start date Start date
  • Tags Tags
    Strategy
Click For Summary
White House Press Secretary Robert Gibbs is stepping down after serving since 2004, and will continue to support President Obama as a consultant during the upcoming 2012 campaign. This transition raises questions about the campaign's strategy, particularly the potential relocation of headquarters to Chicago to project an anti-Washington image. Speculation surrounds the Democratic Party's future, with discussions about candidates for the 2016 election and the impact of current approval ratings on Obama's re-election chances. The economy, particularly unemployment rates, is highlighted as a critical factor influencing the election outcome. Overall, Gibbs' departure marks a significant shift as the administration prepares for the challenges ahead in the political landscape.
  • #121
turbo-1 said:
I was canvassing for Goldwater when I was far too young to vote. Didn't matter - I was distributing bumper stickers and lawn-signs, much to the dismay of my father who was an FDR democrat.

Now, we have self-proclaimed "conservatives" that seem intent to drive the US into financial ruin on the basis of a failed ideology. Nice plan. Impoverish the poor and the middle class so that the wealthy can prosper.
Now that's a good one. You first say you supported Goldwater, now you're spewing the exact same fraudulent nonsense about conservatives that Democrats said about Goldwater, and for the exact same economically libertarian ideology you absurdly claim as "failed".

Seriously, who is your target audience on PF for this nonsense? Whoever it is should feel pretty insulted. It sounds like you're trying to indoctrinate mentally impaired children into a Marxist cult.
 
Last edited by a moderator:
Physics news on Phys.org
  • #123
russ_watters said:
And was that also the last time you voted for a Republican for President? Yeah, Ivan, I get that you were conservative.
We know. A temporary liberal is still a liberal. I'm curious about how long it takes for temporary to become permanent.

Wow... A lot of misconceptions in this post.

Simply because you vote for someone who's a Democrat does NOT make you a Liberal. There are many right-of-center Democrats.

Also, depending on which area you live in, the definition of Democrat vs. Republican changes.

Case-in-point: A Democrat in Utah is most certainly NOT a Democrat in California, and, in fact, a Republican in California is more like a Democrat in Utah.

Third thing: The Republican party, in recent years, has gotten more and more conservative. What does this mean? It means that people who used to vote Republican might no longer vote Republican simply because the party has literally moved out from under their feet. Twenty years ago the Republican party was supporting things like Universal Healthcare - the very things they now find themselves most against. They also actually were trying to pass a bill making it so that Arnold Schwarzenegger could run for President - even though now the Birther issue is being spread by those on the right side of the aisle (read: Republican).

People - and parties - change.
 
  • #124
Ryumast3r said:
Wow... A lot of misconceptions in this post.

Simply because you vote for someone who's a Democrat does NOT make you a Liberal. There are many right-of-center Democrats.

Also, depending on which area you live in, the definition of Democrat vs. Republican changes.

Case-in-point: A Democrat in Utah is most certainly NOT a Democrat in California, and, in fact, a Republican in California is more like a Democrat in Utah.

Third thing: The Republican party, in recent years, has gotten more and more conservative. What does this mean? It means that people who used to vote Republican might no longer vote Republican simply because the party has literally moved out from under their feet. Twenty years ago the Republican party was supporting things like Universal Healthcare - the very things they now find themselves most against. They also actually were trying to pass a bill making it so that Arnold Schwarzenegger could run for President - even though now the Birther issue is being spread by those on the right side of the aisle (read: Republican).

People - and parties - change.

IMO - it might prove helpful if you read some of the thousands of political posts by the other PF members posting on this page before attempting to reach a specific conclusion?
 
  • #125
WhoWee said:
IMO - it might prove helpful if you read some of the thousands of political posts by the other PF members posting on this page before attempting to reach a specific conclusion?

What's wrong with the conclusion that people and parties change?
 
  • #126
lisab said:
What's wrong with the conclusion that people and parties change?
It seems to be a given on this board that someone who espouses common-sense policies (like universal health coverage or a single-payer insurance system to rein in the explosion in health-care costs) can NEVER have supported any Republican candidates ever. When I say that I canvassed for Goldwater and supported Reagan's candidacy (first-term), I am telling it just as it is. I should PM them my father's phone number, so he can explain how incredibly ticked he was that I was supporting Republican candidates, but he's in his mid-80's and doesn't need the aggravation. He's still not happy with me for voting split-tickets for decades, so we rarely discuss politics anymore. He can tick off the D's on his ballot, and I'll vote for the best candidates, IMO, and that's not worth the argument.

BTW, the very last time I was registered as a member of either party was in '88, and I registered as a Democrat so I could participate in the Dem caucuses. I wanted to try to keep Dukakis off the ticket and get Gephardt on, since he was a good supporter of organized labor. Didn't work.

Now, how long before some right-winger calls me a lying Marxist? That's the level of political discourse that is tolerated on these forums, and it's a shame.
 
  • #127
turbo-1 said:
It seems to be a given on this board that someone who espouses common-sense policies (like universal health coverage or a single-payer insurance system to rein in the explosion in health-care costs) can NEVER have supported any Republican candidates ever. When I say that I canvassed for Goldwater and supported Reagan's candidacy (first-term), I am telling it just as it is. I should PM them my father's phone number, so he can explain how incredibly ticked he was that I was supporting Republican candidates, but he's in his mid-80's and doesn't need the aggravation. He's still not happy with me for voting split-tickets for decades, so we rarely discuss politics anymore. He can tick off the D's on his ballot, and I'll vote for the best candidates, IMO, and that's not worth the argument.

BTW, the very last time I was registered as a member of either party was in '88, and I registered as a Democrat so I could participate in the Dem caucuses. I wanted to try to keep Dukakis off the ticket and get Gephardt on, since he was a good supporter of organized labor. Didn't work.

Now, how long before some right-winger calls me a lying Marxist? That's the level of political discourse that is tolerated on these forums, and it's a shame.

In an effort not to de-rail this thread - it sounds as though you'll be supporting President Obama for re-election turbo - because you favor his policies - correct?
 
  • #128
Obama doesn't really need much of a strategy for 2012. The GOP is sowing the seeds of its own destruction by targeting Social Security and Medicare. Elderly people are very reliable voters, and they will not take kindly to any suggestion that they need to receive reduced benefits so that we can keep giving tax breaks to large energy companies, agri-giants, etc.
 
  • #129
WhoWee said:
In an effort not to de-rail this thread - it sounds as though you'll be supporting President Obama for re-election turbo - because you favor his policies - correct?
Unless the GOP can come up with a viable candidate whose policies I can support, Obama will get my vote. It's that simple. I always vote, and I always study the candidates as thoroughly as I can. Right now, Ron Paul, Newt Gingrich, and Mitt Romney don't look too inviting, especially since Mitt is running as hard as he can from the mandated health coverage that he signed into law in Mass.
 
  • #130
turbo-1 said:
Obama doesn't really need much of a strategy for 2012. The GOP is sowing the seeds of its own destruction by targeting Social Security and Medicare. Elderly people are very reliable voters, and they will not take kindly to any suggestion that they need to receive reduced benefits so that we can keep giving tax breaks to large energy companies, agri-giants, etc.

my bold
Care to provide factual support for your assertion?

BTW - I agree that people receiving benefits don't want to hear ANY suggestion that they might have to cut back on anything. Also, you do realize that increasing taxes on business will ultimately lead to higher prices - which are passed on to consumers?
 
  • #131
WhoWee said:
my bold
Care to provide factual support for your assertion?
Do you trust the Christian Science Monitor? I won't cite any of the dozens of stories picked up by Huffington Post, even though they come from independent news sources.

http://www.csmonitor.com/USA/Politi...Will-Social-Security-and-Medicare-be-affected

Politicians, after all, know that retirees are counting on Social Security and Medicare. And, oh yes, they vote.
 
  • #132
Also, you do realize that increasing taxes on business will ultimately lead to higher prices - which are passed on to consumers?

That depends a lot on the details. If demand is relatively elastic with price then the business will end up eating the cost of the tax. If demand is relatively inelastic, then the consumers will bear a larger burden.

It is not true that the businesses will always be able to push the price on to the consumers.
 
  • #133
ParticleGrl said:
That depends a lot on the details. If demand is relatively elastic with price then the business will end up eating the cost of the tax. If demand is relatively inelastic, then the consumers will bear a larger burden.

It is not true that the businesses will always be able to push the price on to the consumers.
Also, we have to recognize the fact that consumers often have choices. If prices rise because a big business loses its tax advantages, consumers may be able to shift to other suppliers or cut back. In stark contrast, tax-funded subsidies to big businesses can't be avoided by average taxpayers. They must be paid for and can't be avoided unless they are eliminated. It boggles the mind how people who call themselves conservatives can support this forced wealth-transfer, while prattling on about the joys of a free market.
 
  • #135
turbo-1 said:
Also, we have to recognize the fact that consumers often have choices. If prices rise because a big business loses its tax advantages, consumers may be able to shift to other suppliers or cut back. In stark contrast, tax-funded subsidies to big businesses can't be avoided by average taxpayers. They must be paid for and can't be avoided unless they are eliminated. It boggles the mind how people who call themselves conservatives can support this forced wealth-transfer, while prattling on about the joys of a free market.

Who is "prattling on about the joys of a free market"? If taxes rise across the board to businesses - prices will ultimately increase. Government spending is not unlimited.
 
  • #136
turbo-1 said:
Unless the GOP can come up with a viable candidate whose policies I can support, Obama will get my vote.
How about a Republican candidate that advocates completely eliminating compulsory Social Security, eliminating the welfare state, drastically cutting the size of government, dramatic deregulation of businesses and the economy in general, stopping funding of the U.N., stopping federal interference into the states' internal affairs, repealing the Civil Rights Act, and basically undoing the New Deal wholesale? Sound like a good Republican candidate to you?
 
Last edited by a moderator:
  • #137
WhoWee said:
How does the Christian Science Monitor article support your assertion?
Do you want more?

http://www.rawstory.com/rs/2011/01/24/key-senate-republican-plan-slash-social-security-medicare-fabulous/

http://www.lasvegassun.com/news/2011/mar/28/harry-reid-tells-republicans-keep-hands-social-sec/
 
  • #138
turbo-1 said:
Also, we have to recognize the fact that consumers often have choices. If prices rise because a big business loses its tax advantages, consumers may be able to shift to other suppliers or cut back. In stark contrast, tax-funded subsidies to big businesses can't be avoided by average taxpayers. They must be paid for and can't be avoided unless they are eliminated. It boggles the mind how people who call themselves conservatives can support this forced wealth-transfer, while prattling on about the joys of a free market.

I could be wrong, but I think GM is able to make this investment BECAUSE of a Government bailout followed by a nearly $45 Billion tax credit.

http://media.gm.com/content/media/u...t/Pages/news/us/en/2011/May/0513_flintbaycity
"GM Investing $109 Million to Keep or Add 96 Michigan Jobs"

http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2010/11/03/gm-tax-break-could-be-wor_n_778300.html
"GM Tax Break Could Be Worth $45 BILLION"

Doesn't this strategy by President Obama (to bailout GM then provide a huge tax credit) contradict your post?
 
  • #139
turbo-1 said:
Do you want more?

http://www.rawstory.com/rs/2011/01/24/key-senate-republican-plan-slash-social-security-medicare-fabulous/

http://www.lasvegassun.com/news/2011/mar/28/harry-reid-tells-republicans-keep-hands-social-sec/

Actually, I asked how the Christian Science Monitor article supported your post - not for additional links?
 
  • #140
turbo-1 said:
Also, we have to recognize the fact that consumers often have choices. If prices rise because a big business loses its tax advantages, consumers may be able to shift to other suppliers or cut back. In stark contrast, tax-funded subsidies to big businesses can't be avoided by average taxpayers. They must be paid for and can't be avoided unless they are eliminated. It boggles the mind how people who call themselves conservatives can support this forced wealth-transfer, while prattling on about the joys of a free market.
Because conservatives are aware that Democrats are using the word "subsidy" fraudulently to refer to tax deductions for drilling expenses. They are not referring to money being collected from other taxpayers and given to oil companies. They are, as usual, fraudulently referring to a portion of a company's private sales revenue as if it were being "given" to them by government by virtue of not being confiscated. (a hallmark of Marxist propaganda, BTW).

And you would know this if you did a little research before you decided to [STRIKE]repeat their lies[/STRIKE] make such unsupported assertions.
 
Last edited by a moderator:
  • #141
Ivan Seeking said:
I have been labeled here as a liberal when in fact I was voting for Republicans when one particular member was just a twinkle in his mother's eye.
LOL. I doubt anyone here is using the label "liberal" or "left-wing" to refer to how you voted years ago, or how you voted at any time for that matter. But I think there just might be a slight possibility that they are referring instead to your stated opinions and positions here on PF forum. Just a theoretical possibility, though. :biggrin:
 
  • #142
LOL. I doubt anyone here is using the label "liberal" or "left-wing" to refer to how you voted years ago, or how you voted at any time for that matter. But I think there just might be a slight possibility that they are referring instead to your stated opinions and positions here on PF forum. Just a theoretical possibility, though.

Also, its worth noting that what was considered right and left has moved over time. Obama's healthcare plan is quite similar to Newt Gingrich's plan from the Clinton era (which is why Romney, a republican governor of MA, enacted the plan). What was once considered a middle-right plan is now considered middle-left. Not to mention that Nixon's failed healthcare plan is further to the left of both plans. For whatever reason, we are pulling right as a country.

Eisenhower would probably be a democrat today.
 
  • #143
WhoWee said:
IMO - it might prove helpful if you read some of the thousands of political posts by the other PF members posting on this page before attempting to reach a specific conclusion?

I've read more threads - and posts for that matter - than you might think. Just because my account hasn't been here for years doesn't mean I haven't been reading for a long time.

Also, your post basically says to me: "Hi, I'm ignoring your points in order to attack you as a person instead of the points you are making" which is very poor debating strategy. Feel free to correct me if I'm wrong though.

The only conclusion in my post was the people and parties change over the years and that just because you vote dem or repub one year or another does not make you a liberal, conservative, independent, etc.
 
  • #144
Ryumast3r said:
I've read more threads - and posts for that matter - than you might think. Just because my account hasn't been here for years doesn't mean I haven't been reading for a long time.

Also, your post basically says to me: "Hi, I'm ignoring your points in order to attack you as a person instead of the points you are making" which is very poor debating strategy. Feel free to correct me if I'm wrong though.

The only conclusion in my post was the people and parties change over the years and that just because you vote dem or repub one year or another does not make you a liberal, conservative, independent, etc.

My intent was never to attack you on a personal level. If you interpreted it that way - I apologize sincerely.
 
  • #147
"“I maintain the strong conviction that if I were to run, I would be able to win the primary and ultimately, the general election,” Trump said in a statement. “Ultimately, however, business is my greatest passion and I am not ready to leave the private sector.”"

I lol'd... he's not even close.

(source, gallup election polling: http://www.gallup.com/poll/election.aspx )
 
Last edited by a moderator:
  • #148
Ryumast3r said:
"“I maintain the strong conviction that if I were to run, I would be able to win the primary and ultimately, the general election,” Trump said in a statement. “Ultimately, however, business is my greatest passion and I am not ready to leave the private sector.”"

I lol'd... he's not even close.

(source, gallup election polling: http://www.gallup.com/poll/election.aspx )
You didn't expect him to want to be President after the network just offered him another season of Apprentice, did you?

Settling for the obviously easy-win job of U.S. President was just his backup plan.
 
Last edited by a moderator:
  • #149
IMO - the 2012 election is now the Republican's to lose.

http://www.bloomberg.com/news/2011-05-19/obama-says-israeli-palestinian-peace-negotiations-more-urgent-than-ever-.html
 
Last edited by a moderator:
  • #150
So Trump basically was 100% sure he could win and he had said repeatedly about how upset he was with the direction the country is heading and how he thought he could help fix it if President. But despite the concern for America and being so sure he could win, when it came time to put the country first or himself first, he chooses himself.
 

Similar threads

John Podesta's greatest regret - government silence on UFOs
  • · Replies 69 ·
3
Replies
69
Views
8K
News Obama Misspeaks on Egypt Relationship Or does he ?
  • · Replies 55 ·
2
Replies
55
Views
8K
News The Obama Administration is Violating the Law
  • · Replies 4 ·
Replies
4
Views
3K
News Clinton-Obama '08: Possible Historic Ticket?
  • · Replies 154 ·
6
Replies
154
Views
24K
News Was the White House Involvement in the Sestak Senate Race Legal or Bribery?
  • · Replies 19 ·
Replies
19
Views
4K
News Stop "Fox News North" - Avaaz.org 21M Global Campaign Network
  • · Replies 6 ·
Replies
6
Views
4K
News President's Homeowner Affordability and Stability Plan
  • · Replies 69 ·
3
Replies
69
Views
9K
News Is George Bush Misusing Taxpayer Money for His Re-Election Campaign?
  • · Replies 6 ·
Replies
6
Views
3K
News Moon Mission: Obama's Panel Says No Go
  • · Replies 4 ·
Replies
4
Views
3K
News What were the top issues in the 2008 presidential election?
  • · Replies 82 ·
3
Replies
82
Views
20K