election 2012

[nerd1]

Should Obama be re-elected?
Why or Why not?
If he shouldn't, who should be elected and why?

[BluePriest]

Im more interested in,

Which of the presidents opposition would you rather have? I won't be voting for this president again, and am unsure of who I would like to have in the white house.

If I wanted just an economic focus, Id choose Herman Cain. The problem with cain is that he has plenty of buisness sense, and has good ideas, but I dont believe he has the experience needed politically.
Meanwhile all the rest of the republlican party has major flaws that cause me to question them as well (Perry forcing the vaccination via executive order, romney-care [although he has stated he thinks it was a failure it still makes me uncomfortable] and Paul thinks that killing terrorists is  bad and warrants impeachment (http://abcnews.go.com/blogs/politics/2011/10/ron-paul-says-obama-has-committed-an-impeachable-offense/)). None of them are all that well rounded.

Another question. Will social, or economic issues be more important this election? All things to consider.

[OldTrees]

Obama is increasing the power of the POTUS. I think that is not the direction we should be heading.

I will be supporting Ron Paul. I believe that enough people are upset about the corruption involved in US politics. I also believe that a consistent show of support for Principled Candidates that happen to believe in reducing Government's Power is the best way to maintain the momentum. This momentum is dealing with an issue that is not Right or Left and will hopefully lead to a less corrupt system.

Paul thinks that the precedent of killing an American citizen without a trial is “very serious" (http://abcnews.go.com/blogs/politics/2011/10/ron-paul-says-obama-has-committed-an-impeachable-offense/)).

FTFY. Please read what someone says. Not what you infer due to your biases.
Ron Paul said “as president, I would have arrested Awlaki, brought him to the U.S., tried him and pushed for the stiffest punishment allowed by law.” He also said “If the American people accept this blindly and casually [we]  have a precedent of an American president assassinating people who he thinks are bad. I think it that’s sad,”

[BluePriest]

“If the American people accept this blindly and casually –  have a precedent of an American president assassinating people who he thinks are bad. I think it that’s sad,”

The "american citizen" is a terrorist. It doesnt matter if hes white black muslim or christian. He is a terrorist. Although I can see the point he is trying to make, it is not a situation that should have turned political. He was an enemy of war in my eyes. I feel this is derailing the topic a bit though. I blame myself more than anything on that

When its all said and done, unless the nominee is absolutely horrible (which I dont forsee) I will be voting for the republican candidate come the election.

[Belthus]

For those of you who prefer the Republican Party:

• If Mitt Romney is nominated, how likely is it that you would vote for him?
• If Rick Perry is nominated, how likely is it that you would vote for him?
• If Herman Cain is nominated, how likely is it that you would vote for him?

My guess is that any Republican Presidential candidate is likely to face substantial defections. Romney has the best chance in the general election, but he is seen as a RINO by large segments of the base, and some Christian conservatives won't vote for a Mormon. Perry had a chance to be the one to unite the party, but he has put his foot in his mouth so often that he may not be able to recover. As for Cain, Republicans love him as a token Black Republican, but serious racists in the party won't vote for a Black man as President.

[BluePriest]

As for Cain, Republicans love him as a token Black Republican, but serious racists in the party won't vote for a Black man as President.

The current president faces the same problem with his own party.

[Belthus]

As for Cain, Republicans love him as a token Black Republican, but serious racists in the party won't vote for a Black man as President.

The current president faces the same problem with his own party.

Obama has won a general election. Cain hasn't even broken 20% among Republicans. It's still a large field, so that number doesn't mean that he won't go on to higher numbers. However, it's no comparison. Obama's problem in 2012 is not racist Democrats; it's the bad economy.

[BluePriest]

 Obama's problem in 2012 is not racist Democrats; it's the bad economy.

I agree that it isnt the major problem the president faces, Im just saying it is one, and one he faced in the last one but overcame. If Cain won the nomination, he definitly wouldnt get any of the racist democrat deserters. Before claiming anyone as a true frontrunner in that debate, the field will definitly need to get smaller (as you pointed out). With Palin (thank you Lord) and Chris Christie out (even though they were never officially in) it will make the field a bit more concentrated, and hopefully Bachman will realize she doesnt stand a chance and step down as well. Once 1 or 2 more people in the republican side of things finally down, I will have a better Idea of who I'd like to have.

Out of the current field though, on the republican side who would you prefer Belthus? Cain for me is probably barely ahead (barely) but it has constantly been changing for me. The nice thing Romney has going for him is that his numbers have stayed rather constant while all the other canidates have had very fluctuating results.

[Belthus]

Out of the current field though, on the republican side who would you prefer Belthus? Cain for me is probably barely ahead (barely) but it has constantly been changing for me. The nice thing Romney has going for him is that his numbers have stayed rather constant while all the other canidates have had very fluctuating results.

Of the ones who have a chance, I think that Romney is the lesser evil. It's clear that his move to the right is what he must do to win the nomination. The question is whether he would govern as a Massachussetts Republican or one who could satisfy the right. However, he has the best chance of winning the general election, which I don't want to go to a Republican. So for strategic reasons, I would like to see someone more extreme nominated and then lose the general election.

[BluePriest]

Im going to have to do more research on ron paul. Im hearing more anr more about how he seems to be sticking to what he believes without being persuaded . Definitly one of thr most important qualities.

Also please forgive any spelling mistakes. At work and typing on a low end tablet so i dont have much time to spellcheck.

[nerd1]

Personally, If i voted, I would vote for Obama. Like every president, he has his deficiencies, but he completed most of what he set out to do.
he [to a point] legalized abortion (I disagree with this move, but this was one of his stated goals, so...)
he re-vitalized the economy (Look at the stats: the recession is over the bad part)
he passed his stimulus plan (which could have been better if the republicans hadn't blocked him)
he would have created nationwide free health insurance if the republicans didn't block him
and as a bonus, he killed Osama bin Laden
If did not vote for him in 2008, then I believe it is completely your choice as whether to vote for him now, but if you did vote for him in 2008, then I recommend staying with him, as I don't believe the republican party has a better alternative, although I may be biased, as I consider myself to have left-leaning tendencies. If you wont vote for him just because he's black then SCREW YOU.

[tyranim]

no. you should elect me instead