Obama supporters........

[Guest]

This is a very serious question so, I hope we can get a very serious answer.

What, if anything, could President Obama do or fail to do that would cause you to lose confidence in him enough to not support him or not vote for his re-election.

This is not a trick question so how about skipping the wise-azz answers.

Yoda

[Guest]

This is not a wise-ass answer. It is how I truly feel. I will be disappointed if there is not a public option in the Health Care bill, but I'm not sure that's completely out as of yet. However, that would not make me lose confidence in him.

I think he is the finest President I've seen in my lifetime. I believe with all of my heart, that he wants the very best for each and every American. With all the hatred and stupidity, I find him a man of character and dignity. He is highly intelligent and is not looking for the "quick fix." He's a visionary and I believe in his term or terms, he will set the foundation of a better future, even though many don't see that now.

I'm curious about your question though. Do you want him to fail? Many do and that's sad. Why would you ask your President's supporters what he could do to lose our confidence? It seems very odd to me.

Plain and simple for me. There is nothing he could do that would lose my confidence. I don't knit pick a slip of the tongue and certainly no one is infallible, and I certainly do not listen to all the vitriolic propaganda put out there... it's just silly and stupid. I am extremely proud of President Obama.

So, let's turn the tables... what can he do to win your support? After all, he is your president too. I'm just asking...:shrug:

[Guest]

For one thing to win support, he needs to get the countries priorities in order instead of trying to get support for his priorities, The economy , unemployment and the two wars and possibly soon to be three all should take priority over healthcare. Whether it is one day promoting the Olympics or one day making his rounds on talk shows, it is time that could be spent on more important things

[Guest]

Since I am not very good with the written word, I will borrow from a professional this morning to respond to this thread...

"The trouble with Obama is that he gets into the moment and means what he says for that moment only. He meant what he said when he called Afghanistan a "war of necessity" -- and now is not necessarily so sure. He meant what he said about the public option in his health care plan -- and then again maybe not. He would not prosecute CIA agents for getting rough with detainees -- and then again maybe he would.

Most tellingly, he gave Congress an August deadline for passage of health care legislation -- "Now, if there are no deadlines, nothing gets done in this town ..." -- and then let it pass. It seemed not to occur to Obama that a deadline comes with a consequence -- meet it or else"

This is why I held back in a thread recently to use the word "liar"......I dont like the word and dont use it and I believe at the moment the President believes what he is saying, but,,,,,well, I dont know why or pretend to know why he is like this.....this was also in the article and I think very much in play...

"Sooner or later it is going to occur to Barack Obama that he is the president of the United States. As of yet, though, he does not act that way, appearing promiscuously on television and granting interviews like the presidential candidate he no longer is. The election has been held, but the campaign goes on and on. The candidate has yet to become commander in chief."

http://www.realclearpolitics.com/articles/2009/09/29/campaign_is_over_mr_president_98489.html

Perhaps if he actually became our President, we can have something more than......"There is nothing he could do that would lose my confidence"
and some substance to grasp !

[Guest]

And then or course there is this which is VERY VERY DISTRUBING...

"President Obama wants a unified front against Iran, and to that end he stood together with Nicolas Sarkozy and Gordon Brown in Pittsburgh on Friday morning to reveal the news about Tehran's secret facility to build bomb-grade fuel. But now we hear that the French and British leaders were quietly seething on stage, annoyed by America's handling of the announcement.

Both countries wanted to confront Iran a day earlier at the United Nations. Mr. Obama was, after all, chairing a Security Council session devoted to nonproliferation. The latest evidence of Iran's illegal moves toward acquiring a nuclear weapon was in hand. With the world's leaders gathered in New York, the timing and venue would be a dramatic way to rally international opinion.

President Sarkozy in particular pushed hard. He had been "frustrated" for months about Mr. Obama's reluctance to confront Iran, a senior French government official told us, and saw an opportunity to change momentum. But the Administration told the French that it didn't want to "spoil the image of success" for Mr. Obama's debut at the U.N. and his homily calling for a world without nuclear weapons, according to the Paris daily Le Monde. So the Iran bombshell was pushed back a day to Pittsburgh, where the G-20 were meeting to discuss economic policy."http://online.wsj.com/article/SB10001424052748704471504574441402775482322.html

More and more it appears to be "all about him" !!!!!

[Guest]

And then or course there is this which is VERY VERY DISTRUBING...

"President Obama wants a unified front against Iran, and to that end he stood together with Nicolas Sarkozy and Gordon Brown in Pittsburgh on Friday morning to reveal the news about Tehran's secret facility to build bomb-grade fuel. But now we hear that the French and British leaders were quietly seething on stage, annoyed by America's handling of the announcement.

Both countries wanted to confront Iran a day earlier at the United Nations. Mr. Obama was, after all, chairing a Security Council session devoted to nonproliferation. The latest evidence of Iran's illegal moves toward acquiring a nuclear weapon was in hand. With the world's leaders gathered in New York, the timing and venue would be a dramatic way to rally international opinion.

President Sarkozy in particular pushed hard. He had been "frustrated" for months about Mr. Obama's reluctance to confront Iran, a senior French government official told us, and saw an opportunity to change momentum. But the Administration told the French that it didn't want to "spoil the image of success" for Mr. Obama's debut at the U.N. and his homily calling for a world without nuclear weapons, according to the Paris daily Le Monde. So the Iran bombshell was pushed back a day to Pittsburgh, where the G-20 were meeting to discuss economic policy."http://online.wsj.com/article/SB10001424052748704471504574441402775482322.html

More and more it appears to be "all about him" !!!!!

Bucco, do you think it's possible to answer a simple question without links and links and someone else's words...links! I respect Schotzby's answer because it comes from the heart.

I said this before and I'll say it again... a link war is not beneficial. I can find as many as you can. I won't engage in this. You're always saying I don't answer a question. Well, let me put to you that you cannot answer a question or put forth a debate without loading it with slanted links. Non-productive.

Just one comment on schotzby's response mentioning a possible "third" war. If you're even imagining this, put it out of your mind. We don't have enough troups. Our young men and woman are exhausted from 5 and 6 tours. That won't happen on Obama's watch. Believe it!

[Guest]

be another war or not. He may elect to not start one, but he has little to do or say about being brought into one.
If the US troops were so woefully prepared or rested or not or what ever....could be a very appealing time to our adversaries around the world to drag us into a conflict.
Just Like I do not believe one can pause a war while deciding how to fight it...I also believe the military of this country is better prepared and capable on an ongoing basis than the media would have most believe....at least today. If we fail to invest in our military might time will take it's toll.

While all wars we are involved in are ours to fight....they may not be ours to start!!!
Hence they CAN occur on any POTUS' watch.

btk

[Guest]

be another war or not. He may elect to not start one, but he has little to do or say about being brought into one.
If the US troops were so woefully prepared or rested or not or what ever....could be a very appealing time to our adversaries around the world to drag us into a conflict.
Just Like I do not believe one can pause a war while deciding how to fight it...I also believe the military of this country is better prepared and capable on an ongoing basis than the media would have most believe....at least today. If we fail to invest in our military might time will take it's toll.

While all wars we are involved in are ours to fight....they may not be ours to start!!!
Hence they CAN occur on any POTUS' watch.

btk

If you think the media has overblown the accounts of our tired and dwindling military, you're sadly mistaken. I'd be very, very careful of encouraging or supporting another war. The relics of fallen empires are strewn all over the globe. Ya, they thought they were the biggest, brightest and best too. History does repeat itself. That's not speculation... that's a fact.

[Guest]

At no time did I even have a thought about advocating or supporting another war. I was merely pointing out the fact that one may not be in control of the circumstances that determine whether one is to be involved or not......NOTHING MORE.
Your restating of my intent is totally and completely incorrect.
While you are entitled to your opinion, you are not entitled to represent that opinion as another's intent.

btk

[Guest]

I can't believe what I am reading!! Nothing Obama can do would cause a person to not vote for him !! That is scary! I would think that is close to being the definition of being a fanatic, (e.g.A person marked or motivated by an extreme, unreasoning enthusiasm, as for a cause.). A key word in the definition is "unreasoning"..Hopefully more will be driven by reasoning and using reason when making political judgement and avoiding being a fanatic. Too many world problems are and have been caused by fanatic's. It does not take a history lesson to realize this.

[Guest]

I can't believe what I am reading!! Nothing Obama can do would cause a person to not vote for him !! That is scary! I would think that is close to being the definition of being a fanatic, (e.g.A person marked or motivated by an extreme, unreasoning enthusiasm, as for a cause.). A key word in the definition is "unreasoning"..Hopefully more will be driven by reasoning and using reason when making political judgement and avoiding being a fanatic. Too many world problems are and have been caused by fanatic's. It does not take a history lesson to realize this.

Excuuuuuuse me... and you don't call yourself a fanatic??? I don't believe my question was answered. What can President Obama ever do to win your support. (And don't say become a Republican!) :laugh:

[Guest]

I can't believe what I am reading!! Nothing Obama can do would cause a person to not vote for him !! That is scary! I would think that is close to being the definition of being a fanatic, (e.g.A person marked or motivated by an extreme, unreasoning enthusiasm, as for a cause.). A key word in the definition is "unreasoning"..Hopefully more will be driven by reasoning and using reason when making political judgment and avoiding being a fanatic. Too many world problems are and have been caused by fanatic's. It does not take a history lesson to realize this.

I found this post to be intriguing....many of the posters here are conservative and yet voted for Bush twice even though he clearly was NOT the conservative they thought they voted for. As evidence he ran up the deficients did nothing about abortion for starters.

So I will answer clearly in much the same way....I was a Hillary girl she was my candidate but could I vote for John McCain. Absolutely not. I supported him when he ran against Bush but the John McCain that ran last year was not the John McCain would ran against Bush. My vote will depend on the candidate who runs for the Republicans. Several in the running now I cannot support under almost any circumstance.

So I ask the opposite question...what would have caused you to vote against Bush?

[Guest]

OMG! Bush is history... let it go!!!!!

[Guest]

OMG! Bush is history... let it go!!!!!

I really don't get it.....we suffered for 8 years under that administration, he started 2 wars, ran up the deficit, illegally spied on the American public and tortured prisoners of war.

And we are just supposed to forget it all?

Hardly.

[Guest]

I really don't get it.....we suffered for 8 years under that administration, he started 2 wars, ran up the deficit, illegally spied on the American public and tortured prisoners of war.

And we are just supposed to forget it all?

Hardly.

What good does it do to bring it up over and over again? The past is the past, you cannot change it. There are bigger issues to worry about than things you cannot change.

[Guest]

Chelsea24..In one of your responses I believe you said:"Plain and simple for me. There is nothing he could do that would lose my confidence". I think this falls pretty close to "...motivated by an extreme, unreasoning enthusiasm, as for a cause."
Of course there are many things Obama could do to convince me to support him and I can assure there is no Republican in which I would place so much confidence in that there was nothing they could do to lose my confidence..!! In fact I can think of a few that did lose my confidence..

[Guest]

Bucco, do you think it's possible to answer a simple question without links and links and someone else's words...links! I respect Schotzby's answer because it comes from the heart.

I said this before and I'll say it again... a link war is not beneficial. I can find as many as you can. I won't engage in this. You're always saying I don't answer a question. Well, let me put to you that you cannot answer a question or put forth a debate without loading it with slanted links. Non-productive.

Just one comment on schotzby's response mentioning a possible "third" war. If you're even imagining this, put it out of your mind. We don't have enough troups. Our young men and woman are exhausted from 5 and 6 tours. That won't happen on Obama's watch. Believe it!

Fair enough ! I use a lot of links because I do a lot of reading and like to share.

During the campaign, you (NOT ONLY YOU) told me I was out of touch with my feelings and thus my sense that I will share that I am NOT out of touch; that in fact there are millions who feel the way I do.

Having said that....in response to your question..."what can he do to win your support?"

During the campaign I was very clear about what I thought. I felt then that the President's background indicated very clearly that he only could manage or govern from the very far left...that he had extreme socialist tendencies and his voting record and statements ESPECIALLY AS A YOUNG MAN before the general campaign were very clear in this manner.

I also said that he was....shall we say, misleading his followers with his rhetoric.

I maintain that all of that is even more evident now than then.

Everything he does leans to CLASS....REDISTRIBUTION.

While I agreed with TARP, the amnesty bill should have lit up all kind of lights to everyone. It was pork, pure and simple...even though he said he would never sign a bill like that. It was PUSHED AND RAMMED through without reading, which was opposite of the way he campaigned.

His talk of transparency is a joke; he has been the most cloaked administration in years and his campaigning on no politics is also a joke.

He speaks of trying to reach across the aisle but does not do it. Example is the health debate where he even admits he has not spoken (this is as of about a week ago) to anyone from the other side and is trying ONLY to twist arms to pass HIS BILL. That is another question...WHAT IS HIS BILL ? In my mind, he simply wants A bill...he could care less about anything but his "legacy"

He continues to attack the "rich"....he continues to push socialist agendas and I know you dont like that word but redistribution is only going one way.

He is ALWAYS campaigning.....and I read the other day (promise no link) that it almost looks as if he is a "front man" instead of a President. He is so czar happy...folks with no checks and balances on and nobody to report to except the President.

During the campaign I brought up ACORN...you poo pooed it....that case is just beginning to unravel and there is much much more to come on that as they follow the money and I pretty much know where that will lead eventually since they have laundered money for Soros and the Democratic party for years.

I already talked about how is he acting EXACTLY as I said he would during the campaign.

On foreign affairs, I posted here where I supported him on Iran, but reading about his concern for his IMAGE to the point where it irritated our allies that he did not get the jump on Iran in announcing is at best distrurbing.

His campaign rhetoric on Afghanastan is now history. I would give him the benefit of the doubt and say that he became aware of things once in office, but a few short months ago he announced a strategy and called it a war of necessity and now that may not be the case. He may stick to his guns but he sure is leaving some folks hanging out there without addressing it.

By the way, my concern on his trip to Copenhagen had NOTHING to do with the amount of time he spent there, but the image of the Iran thing and the Afghanastan thing being pretty darn important and he made a trip to pitch the Olympics....just presents a set of priorities that I have trouble with.

I am just not impressed with his rhetoric in any way ! His statement about the illegal immigrants was pure and simple either an error or a lie since at that time there was no way to check and had to know it or if he didnt he should have.

He is becoming more of a front man than a President and that is scary as he is surrounded by the most brutal political hacks you could find in Emanuel and Axlerod YET he pronounces he is not playing politics.

Now, knowing that you will mention Bush as you do often......I told you during the campaign that I have been and will be very critical of his administration, but MAYBE his staying out of Afghanastan was a good move and he knew it, and by the way have you notice despite all the claims of how Bush was "spying" on us, that Obama quietly keeps ALL the same in place ?

The investigating of the CIA is ludricious....of course he washed his hands of it and left the investigation of our foreign spy agency to his appointee..whatever he wants to do. He left unmentioned the NON charges on the Black Panthers that were intimidating voters, but got involved in the case at Harvard.

I am going to stop as this is rambling at best but as you can see, Obama is doing everything I warned of during the campaign and your statement...

"There is nothing he could do that would lose my confidence."

says pretty much it all. You will be a loyal admirer under any and all circumstances, not matter what. I know of nobody in my circle even those who are strong Republicans and strong supporters of Bush who would say that and suggest that if Palin said that about anyone you would ridicule her.

I am sure nobody read this all but if you did I apologize for giving you a headache :)

On, what can he do to get my support ? The list is so long because of what he has already done...as I fight him on all the political and internal issues that are being rammed down our throat, he could get some semblance of my support by showing some strength in foreign relations and forget the rock star act !~

[Guest]

I really don't get it.....we suffered for 8 years under that administration, he started 2 wars, ran up the deficit, illegally spied on the American public and tortured prisoners of war.

And we are just supposed to forget it all?

Hardly.

I just want to remind you .......the war in Afghanastan he tried to wind down, not appears it is going to be wound up. The war in Iraq, despite your protestations (and not going to debate that again) was overwhelmingly supported by congress and the intel used was the same as the rest of the world had..not just George Bush.,

Further know that all of the "illegal spying" you refer to has been continued by Obama, not as an act of just not addressing it but continuing is as an action.

I wont even comment on the "torture" stuff...that is Obama's bread and butter as he demeaned the country and the last President in front of the entire world to the UN and it bothered me quite a bit !

I agree on the deficit but this President is making him look like a minor leaguer and he just started !

[Guest]

I just want to remind you .......the war in Afghanastan he tried to wind down, not appears it is going to be wound up. The war in Iraq, despite your protestations (and not going to debate that again) was overwhelmingly supported by congress and the intel used was the same as the rest of the world had..not just George Bush.,

Further know that all of the "illegal spying" you refer to has been continued by Obama, not as an act of just not addressing it but continuing is as an action.

I wont even comment on the "torture" stuff...that is Obama's bread and butter as he demeaned the country and the last President in front of the entire world to the UN and it bothered me quite a bit !

I agree on the deficit but this President is making him look like a minor leaguer and he just started !

:agree: I agree 100% with the above. But I find it funny, actually, not surprised, that the original question has not been answered by Obama supporters... to say that there is nothing he can do that would reduce their confidence in him is beyond my comprehension. There is nobody on this earth that I would categorically back with a statement as that.

[Guest]

:agree: I agree 100% with the above. But I find it funny, actually, not surprised, that the original question has not been answered by Obama supporters... to say that there is nothing he can do that would reduce their confidence in him is beyond my comprehension. There is nobody on this earth that I would categorically back with a statement as that.


I beleive that I answered the question to begin with....so I will make it more clear:

If the Republicans run a candidate who:


Supports Workers as well a Business
Supports Women's Rights
Supports Equal Rights for All
Supports Universal Health Care
Supports Medicare
Supports Education


Then I could vote for that Republican candidate.

[Guest]

I beleive that I answered the question to begin with....so I will make it more clear:

If the Republicans run a candidate who:


Supports Workers as well a Business
Supports Women's Rights
Supports Equal Rights for All
Supports Universal Health Care
Supports Medicare
Supports Education


Then I could vote for that Republican candidate.

None of these things are in the catagory of what President Obama would "do or fail to do."

Yoda

[Guest]

None of these things are in the catagory of what President Obama would "do or fail to do."

Yoda

Cause its not about Obama.....it is about who I can vote for.

[Guest]

BUCCO!! Obama is the linker to end all linkers.

He links himself to what past Presidents say or did in all of his major speeches.

It is quite impossible for anyone to deal with important issues without reference to the learned and great thinkers.

Obama's problem is that he is linked to so many bad organizations and corrupt parties not to mention socialists and Marxists.

keep up with your links they are needed.

[Guest]

Cause its not about Obama.....it is about who I can vote for.

You are right Cologal.

And too many on both sides just Vote the Party and either dont know, dont care or just dont want to find out the facts before voting either Dem or Rep.

I would change my affiliation in a minute if the other parties leader had a better platform and more convincing than my parties leader.

[Guest]

I support President Obama on his efforts to increase voucher programs for education and his willingness, so far, to do whatever it takes to win the war in Afghanistan. I oppose his effort to enact government healthcare with its accompanying cost and his cap and trade policy which will devastate this nation's economy.

It's not a question of what he has to do on a specific issue. It is a question of his overall political philosophy and actions. I did not vote for him in 2008 and do not foresee supporting him in 2012. The increased polarization of Washington needs to end if we are going to continue as a great nation. We need to relearn that politics stops at the water's edge. Barack Obama is now my President. Unlike the many who chose to constantly attack President Bush (43), I will continue to give him the respect his office deserves. We still have some leaders who can work across the aisle for the good of the country. I think immediate of Senators Max Baucus and Kit Bond. We have others who work for partisan advantage and personal power, regardless of what is best for the country. The name that comes immediately to mind is Nancy Pelosi.

[Guest]

the POTUS!!!!! I would hope and pray in this day and age of terrorism and fanaticals that there would NEVER, EVER be a time when Biden and Obama are allowed at the same place at the same time.

The very thought of such an event should strike fear in the hearts of any American with a heartbeat. Wow that could be the second bipartisan subject discussed the morning!!

btk

[Guest]

the POTUS!!!!! I would hope and pray in this day and age of terrorism and fanaticals that there would NEVER, EVER be a time when Biden and Obama are allowed at the same place at the same time.

The very thought of such an event should strike fear in the hearts of any American with a heartbeat. Wow that could be the second bipartisan subject discussed the morning!!

btk

What? You mean if something happened Biden and Obama we could have a women as president? I never even thought about that....And may both Biden and Obama live long and happy lives.....

Hillary as President.....now that is something I look forward to.