It looks like you're using an Ad Blocker.

Please white-list or disable AboveTopSecret.com in your ad-blocking tool.

Thank you.

 

Some features of ATS will be disabled while you continue to use an ad-blocker.

 

3-4 years later, after being strongly anti-Obama....I will be voting for him for a second term.

page: 22
65
<< 19  20  21    23  24  25 >>

log in

join
share:

posted on Jan, 28 2012 @ 10:54 PM
link   
It doesn't matter who you vote for. The electoral college picks the vote, not the people.




posted on Jan, 28 2012 @ 11:34 PM
link   
reply to post by vasaga
 


I only said what I saw.

And at the end of the day, what I see is that Obama is a good president. Thus, I will be voting for him if Ron Paul is not on the republican ticket.



posted on Jan, 29 2012 @ 12:23 AM
link   
reply to post by mnmcandiez
 


And you choose that electorate college. In fact, you have more control over the vote through that.

If the people cannot take it upon themselves to target the weakest part of the system that has the most power, they are given their just deserts.



posted on Jan, 29 2012 @ 12:40 AM
link   
reply to post by Gorman91
 



Who selects the Electors? The process for selecting electors varies throughout the United States. Generally, the political parties nominate electors at their State party conventions or by a vote of the party's central committee in each State. Electors are often selected to recognize their service and dedication to their political party. They may be State elected officials, party leaders, or persons who have a personal or political affiliation with the Presidential candidate. Then the voters in each State choose the electors on the day of the general election. The electors' names may or may not appear on the ballot below the name of the candidates running for President, depending on the procedure in each State.


www.archives.gov...

Democrat or Republican.... wow what a choice

edit on 1/29/2012 by mnmcandiez because: (no reason given)



posted on Jan, 29 2012 @ 12:46 AM
link   
reply to post by mnmcandiez
 



And? Take the tea party. Now a large amount of the republicans are non-establishment.

Do you not understand the benefit of the system you just described? Rather that organize an entire nation to vote a certain way, you can focus on your local community and towns and states.

What Party name they have is irrelevant to whom they are. You either organize and pick right, or don't and fall down. Your choice.



posted on Jan, 29 2012 @ 03:11 AM
link   

Originally posted by The Sword

Can you back up anything that you're saying?

Your avatar is kind of stupid though. I doubt that girl even knows what socialism is. She probably listens too much to Faux Noise and fright-wing blowhards.


I actually did, but we can see that people like you go blind when confronted with facts, which is why you voted for Obama...

BTW, calling people names doesn't make you right, it makes you stupid. More so when you think doing so makes your case...



posted on Jan, 29 2012 @ 03:15 AM
link   
reply to post by flexy123
 


Social issues, including unemployment are resolved in Europe?...


Yeah we can see it with all the riots you people get almost every year to the dot...

Obama didn't fix anything, he made things worse, and we don't have to take ANY European country as an example.. WE ARE NOT FREAKING EUROPE AND WE DON'T WANT TO BE...



posted on Jan, 29 2012 @ 03:19 AM
link   

Originally posted by mastahunta

Are you really saying Bush was a better president than Obama?

Obama may not be the best, but that opinion is laughable.

Bush set up and helmed the biggest economic disaster in the
history of finance, not figuratively or rhetorically, but literally...


Not really, the biggest economic disaster was put in place by PROGRESSIVES and in general leftwingers. It has been the Feds which have caused every depression, recession, and inflation which has plagued the Republic of the United States since progressive democrats put the Feds in power in 1913...

Not to mention that under a liberal democrat as president, Franklin Delano Roosevelt, the U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission was set up to regulate Wall Street, and what exactly has it done?... The same thing with every "progressive" idea that has been implemented by leftwingers ahs done to the Republic of the United States... it has put us closer to the edge of the cliff that will forever destroy this nation...

And yet again progressives/leftwingers are the same ones now claiming they have the answer to the problems when they don't, you just make things worse.


edit on 29-1-2012 by ElectricUniverse because: (no reason given)



posted on Jan, 29 2012 @ 07:29 AM
link   

Originally posted by vasaga
reply to post by FlyingSpaghettiMonster
 

What's wrong with illustrations? And humans make mistakes. But yeah.. If you can't tackle the argument, attack everything around it to ridicule it, right?

Lack of an alternative does not make the current situation right. Just because no knows an alternative to world hunger than just eliminating the poor doesn't mean eliminating the poor is right. You need to let go of your current state of mind before you can consider alternatives anyway.



I just said what's wrong with them - they're patronising, simplistic flashcards and the only thing they illustrate are the faults of the 'argument' presented in the voice over. I've no trouble tackling the argument, because that too is based on very little. Basically it's the usual condescending sneer that the masses are being brainwashed (unlike the clever narrator) and that if you disagree it's because you're brainwashed or just plain thick. It makes the unsupportable suggestion that all parties are fundamentally the same, and therefore not worth voting for. Try telling an Obama supporter that he's the same as Rick Santorum. In particular the idea that Green parties are fundamentally the same as any other just doesn't hold water.

We live in a world that is built around free market economics, which I don't particularly like, but that's what you have to deal with. Alternatives are difficult to promote, mostly because we are very used to capitalism and changing that system fundamentally is a big mental shock for many people. But the video suggests nothing concrete or positive, just abandoning an existing method of registering political views and only making vague noises about 'people power' as an alternative. What it amounts to is the usual conspiracy counsel of despair 'they're more powerful than you, just give up'. Falling levels of voting are responsible for the skewed results that please no one. If only people would engage with the process then it would better reflect their views. It doesn't have to be the only way of making our views known, but it's better than none at all.
edit on 29-1-2012 by FlyingSpaghettiMonster because: editing



posted on Jan, 29 2012 @ 07:31 AM
link   

Originally posted by soulwaxer
Here's a way of looking at it, at least if you're a parent: Who would you send your kids to for a two-week holiday? I have no doubt that I would send them to Ron Paul.


Wow. Bet you'd be popular when they got back.



posted on Jan, 29 2012 @ 09:09 AM
link   

Originally posted by Gorman91
reply to post by vasaga
 


I only said what I saw.

And at the end of the day, what I see is that Obama is a good president. Thus, I will be voting for him if Ron Paul is not on the republican ticket.
What you saw.. Reported by who? The mainstream media? And, what if Ron Paul decides to run as an independent?


Originally posted by SaturnFX

Originally posted by vasaga

Originally posted by David9176
reply to post by mastahunta
 

most presidents get their major policies done in their second term....which is why it's important for him to get back in there.
How did that work out with Bush? And what about the secret signing of NDAA?


Would you have preferred it be some sort of worldwide broadcast at 8pm with trumpets and ticker tape parades?

the bill sucks, but show me any route that would have had it not signed. Also, tell me who opposed it in congress.

But yes, Obama should have vetoed it and said try again but without those subsections in question...the biggest issue I have with Obama is his spinelessness against the republicans, and this is the catastrophic result of it. He speaks well, but doesn't stand up for the values he promotes with words through actions.

In saying that...I am with BH. I would rather deal with 4 more years of Obama's broken promises of hope than the neo-con's kept promises of scorched earth.
So what you're saying is, "we know things will become worse, but, we'll have to vote anyway, to slow down the rate at which we get worse"?
edit on 29-1-2012 by vasaga because: (no reason given)



posted on Jan, 29 2012 @ 10:27 AM
link   
reply to post by ThirdEyeofHorus
 


Of course I couldn't I'm smart enough to make a clearer graph. I know thats the point your getting at that the graph is clearly misleading on purpose.



posted on Jan, 29 2012 @ 10:38 AM
link   
reply to post by ElectricUniverse
 


You need to lay off the Glen Beck stuff man.



posted on Jan, 29 2012 @ 12:59 PM
link   
reply to post by vasaga
 


The mainstream media, outside Fox, doesn't exactly lie.

I circulate between CNN, RT, google news, and BBC. It's usually they either don't cover something, or do a moreover smear campaign. Yes they take preferences, but I haven't ever really seen many outright lies.

I mean, This stuff is modern superstition. I'd wish someone actually did a scientific look and compare at several different news articles and topics and sources. I'm pretty sure yea, they all give their own opinion, but they are say it mostly as it is.

I only really view Fox News as lies, and they're just laughed at by most anyway.



posted on Jan, 29 2012 @ 01:12 PM
link   
reply to post by vasaga
 
I hate discussing politics. No matter how much common sense you try to use you always seem to put you're foot in you're mouth. People seem to interpret what you say to fit their way of thinking and it gets you in hot water.

The same information given to a republican and a democrat gets a totally different interpretation and rarely fits into the original reason for the information. This I got from an article on Science Daily about 6 months ago. It's rationallity seems to fit in well with the way it is in the world.



posted on Jan, 29 2012 @ 01:35 PM
link   

Originally posted by Gorman91
reply to post by vasaga
 


The mainstream media, outside Fox, doesn't exactly lie.
Wow. Just wow..


Originally posted by Gorman91
I circulate between CNN, RT, google news, and BBC. It's usually they either don't cover something, or do a moreover smear campaign. Yes they take preferences, but I haven't ever really seen many outright lies.
What's the difference between a smear campaign and a lie?


Originally posted by Gorman91
I mean, This stuff is modern superstition. I'd wish someone actually did a scientific look and compare at several different news articles and topics and sources. I'm pretty sure yea, they all give their own opinion, but they are say it mostly as it is.
Who funds all these networks? But yeah, keep believing that if you wish.


Originally posted by Gorman91
I only really view Fox News as lies, and they're just laughed at by most anyway.
So.. What the majority thinks is correct?


Originally posted by rickymouse
reply to post by vasaga
 
I hate discussing politics. No matter how much common sense you try to use you always seem to put you're foot in you're mouth. People seem to interpret what you say to fit their way of thinking and it gets you in hot water.

The same information given to a republican and a democrat gets a totally different interpretation and rarely fits into the original reason for the information. This I got from an article on Science Daily about 6 months ago. It's rationallity seems to fit in well with the way it is in the world.
I'm trying to let people here see through the bull. They need to stop playing these stupid games and cause some actual change. But people are too sheepish to understand.
edit on 29-1-2012 by vasaga because: (no reason given)



posted on Jan, 29 2012 @ 01:35 PM
link   

Originally posted by ElectricUniverse

Originally posted by mastahunta

Are you really saying Bush was a better president than Obama?

Obama may not be the best, but that opinion is laughable.

Bush set up and helmed the biggest economic disaster in the
history of finance, not figuratively or rhetorically, but literally...


Not really, the biggest economic disaster was put in place by PROGRESSIVES and in general leftwingers. It has been the Feds which have caused every depression, recession, and inflation which has plagued the Republic of the United States since progressive democrats put the Feds in power in 1913...

Not to mention that under a liberal democrat as president, Franklin Delano Roosevelt, the U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission was set up to regulate Wall Street, and what exactly has it done?... The same thing with every "progressive" idea that has been implemented by leftwingers ahs done to the Republic of the United States... it has put us closer to the edge of the cliff that will forever destroy this nation...

And yet again progressives/leftwingers are the same ones now claiming they have the answer to the problems when they don't, you just make things worse.


edit on 29-1-2012 by ElectricUniverse because: (no reason given)


Well gee, Wall Street was successfully regulated for over half a century, before the corporatist
right wingers implemented loop holes and mechanisms for widespread fraud.
Ya really, sorry to tell you; America became the worlds most wealthy and powerful nation thanks
to progressive policy. So the time you are complaining about, also refers to the time when America
surpassed all the other nations on the globe.

Things get worse when right winger engineer pro business policies that systematically weaken sound
laws in the name of FREE MARKETS. bull...



posted on Jan, 29 2012 @ 02:12 PM
link   

Originally posted by rickymouse

... Nobody could easily fix this messed up economy we have put faith in. The republicans couldn't have done it if McLean would have won either. I personally think McLean purposely threw the election. He isn't as dumb as he was acting in his compaign. He was acting strange. Losing when the economy was severly failing allows the republicans to blame things on the Democrats....


Despite the fact that you couldn't remember McCain's name, you have a point here. McCain "purposely threw the election." McCain was so disengaged from his own election, he didn't even bother to vet Palin.

I hated Bush when he was in office. I'm not a Palin fan either: she's not a bad human being, but she's not qualified to be President. But Obama is about as corrupt as they come, incompetent, and unqualified. Obama does not care about the US, he's all about his own personal power. He's good at reading a speech someone else wrote for him. Obama does what his masters tell him to do -- he's a total corporate shill.

It's incredible to me that there are still people who believe in Obama -- especially on a site like ATS.

As lame as the Republican line-up is, ANY one of them (including Ron Paul) would be an improvement over Obama.



posted on Jan, 29 2012 @ 02:30 PM
link   
reply to post by vasaga
 


Not voting is not fixing anything.


Also a smear campaign is not lying. What they did to Ron Paul with the newsletters was a smear campaign, yet they never lied.


Maybe you should watch what you claim is lying.

RT, CNN, BBC, and NBC do not get funded by the same people, fyi.



posted on Jan, 29 2012 @ 03:20 PM
link   

Originally posted by Gorman91
reply to post by vasaga
 


Not voting is not fixing anything.
How do you know? And how does voting fix anything? Newsflash. The government does not care about you.


Originally posted by Gorman91
Also a smear campaign is not lying. What they did to Ron Paul with the newsletters was a smear campaign, yet they never lied.
So half-truths are still truth?


Originally posted by Gorman91
Maybe you should watch what you claim is lying.
Right back at ya.


Originally posted by Gorman91
RT, CNN, BBC, and NBC do not get funded by the same people, fyi.
Are you sure?
edit on 29-1-2012 by vasaga because: (no reason given)



new topics




 
65
<< 19  20  21    23  24  25 >>

log in

join