Worse President

[jazyd]

I happen to agree with you, especiallybOhio. Many made fun of Carl rove because of what he predicted night of election., he was totally shocked, why???? But the guy who made me believe it was stole is the guy on a Fox that always does election night and has his finger on precincts like no other. He also predicted Romney to win and take Ohio. He also was in total disbelief of what happened. The guy is just never wrong and he was she'll shocked.
Just as Kennedy "won" Chicago so did Obama win.


QUOTE=suncat05;197581]Romney was a few points ahead in almost all of the pre-election polls. Not much, as most would consider the difference to be dead even. And on election day "O" wins by 10 points, easy. I knew something was up when he carried Florida. Of course, he carried those liberal bastions of West Palm Beach, Ft. Lauderdale & Miami, and that won the state for him.
I have no proof, but I seriously believe the election was somehow rigged in his favor, probably by all of the dead voters voting numerous times, hundreds of busloads of minority voters being bussed in, and all of his "Obamaphone clientele" somehow managing to show up at the polls.
I watched as he won every 'swing' state, including Florida & Ohio. Again, I can't prove it, but I have my doubts as to how he managed to win with all of the stuff that was going south on him then.
The last election was stolen, IMHO, by a liar & and a pretty damned good thief. I just want to see him get caught up in his own mess and pay the piper for all of the wrong that he's done.
Of course, I also know that is no more than wishful thinking......... [/QUOTE]

[KeithKSR]

Wow...amazing this vast conspiracy happened and not ONE person has come out and spoken about it or be caught doing it...I mean if something like this really happened you think that say FoxNews would be all over it trying to prove it, but hummm, nothing...

Just after the 2012 election there was a plethora of news reports claiming reports of fraud were false. However, the wheels of justice turn slowly. Reports of what happened in 2012 did not begin to come out until spring 2013 and continue.

State officials in North Carolina and Ohio found numerous instances of voter fraud. Just a couple of weeks ago a Seattle man was sentenced for ID fraud and voter intimidation tactics for mailing an unknown number of Republicans in Florida letters questioning their voter validity.

Was voter fraud extensive enough to alter the election? I don't know. Did fraud occur? Yes, and it was more prevalent in swing states.

What I find asinine is the thinking that requiring an id is somehow preventing people from voting. You need a photo I'd in order to open a bank account and numerous other activities that are not nearly as important as voting.

My philosophy is that voter fraud is intolerable in the electoral process.

[UKHistory]

As quirky as things can be, I am glad right now he can't run again--just in case.

George Washington was our first president and his leadership sets bar so very high. By choosing to step down after two terms he demonstrated the civility of our Republic and that we would not quickly fall into tryanny. Having two advisors so much in opposition of one another is to his credit as well.

On a personal note, Washington freed his slaves upon his death. While it would have been great had he freed his slaves earlier, at least upon his death those men and women became free. The same could not be said for another great American, Mr. Jefferson.

Read MTCat on here

PQUOTE=Edward100;197558]It’s a shame that the president can’t run three terms in succession. I would like to see if Obama would carry any state. I have yet to hear anyone say anything good about anything about Obama.

[/QUOTE]

[Edward100]

MTCat had some great info but that was the last election. I can't believe those figures would be the same today after we saw Obama's true colors. They are not red, white and blue. I have to stand by my statement of not hearing one good thing about Obama.

Read MTCat on here

PQUOTE=Edward100;197558]It’s a shame that the president can’t run three terms in succession. I would like to see if Obama would carry any state. I have yet to hear anyone say anything good about anything about Obama.

[/QUOTE]

[Doc]

WOOO HOOO--- at least somebody agrees with me.

[MTcatfan]

MTCat had some great info but that was the last election. I can't believe those figures would be the same today after we saw Obama's true colors. They are not red, white and blue. I have to stand by my statement of not hearing one good thing about Obama.

[/QUOTE]

Yeah, I was not really saying anything nice about Obama, I was just providing some facts to refute the asinine conspiracy theory that Obama stole the election. Was there some voter fraud, absolutely, there always is voter fraud, but was there enough to actually change the election, no, there never is because there is never a fraud that is large enough and coordinated enough to swing an actual Presidential election(again because if there was such a thing it would collapse under its own weight because someone would get paid to talk or someone would get disgruntled and THEN get paid to talk). I was also providing facts to debunk that Romney had some sort of discernible lead in the polls that Obama somehow fraudulently overcame to win the election. The polls show that it was basically a toss up popular vote-wise heading into the election, but based on polling heading into the election Obama had a decent lead in the electoral college, is the polls held true in each state.

Debunking a conspiracy theory is not the same thing as saying nice things about someone. Again Obama no more stole the election with Romney than Bush did when he lost to Gore in the popular vote, but won the electoral college. Obama won, period, Bush won period, and life goes on...


As far as a third term goes, if Christie ran against Obama, Christie would probably whip Obama's butt right now, but if the GOP goes with any of the Tea Party loonies, Obama might be able to squeak out a win. As moderate I would vote for Christie as of now, but I will never in a million years vote for anyone associated with the Tea Party.

[Doc]

In my book one fraudulent vote is one too many. I've never understood the it's not enough to sway an election argument because we tout the importance of your vote. You can't have it both ways. You can't say every vote counts AND fraudulent votes don't matter because there are not enough of them. In that same vein, I never understood the opposition to voter ID. Too hard for some people to get? Really? You are talking about voting here. If it's so damn important then getting an ID really should be worth the trouble to do it


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

[KeithKSR]

In my book one fraudulent vote is one too many. I've never understood the it's not enough to sway an election argument because we tout the importance of your vote. You can't have it both ways. You can't say every vote counts AND fraudulent votes don't matter because there are not enough of them. In that same vein, I never understood the opposition to voter ID. Too hard for some people to get? Really? You are talking about voting here. If it's so damn important then getting an ID really should be worth the trouble to do it


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

I agree, one fraudulent vote is one too many. I too see a problem with those that want to count every vote, even fraudulent ones. Kentucky voting regulations are way out in front of other states when it comes to preventing fraud.

[jazyd]

To my knowledge we didn't have any problems with voter ID in our recent primaries and it sure didnt keep blacks from voting.

For liberals voting fraud is fine because it usually helps them and they use MT
'S excuse. But if there us one single irregular vote from the GOP side, heaven help all of us from the hissy fit the liberals would throw.

There was fraud in Ohio last election, southern Ohio. Obama is Chicago politics, think Kennedy/Nixon/100,000 votes

In my book one fraudulent vote is one too many. I've never understood the it's not enough to sway an election argument because we tout the importance of your vote. You can't have it both ways. You can't say every vote counts AND fraudulent votes don't matter because there are not enough of them. In that same vein, I never understood the opposition to voter ID. Too hard for some people to get? Really? You are talking about voting here. If it's so damn important then getting an ID really should be worth the trouble to do it


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

[MickintheHam]

As moderate I would vote for Christie as of now, but I will never in a million years vote for anyone associated with the Tea Party.[/QUOTE]

Pretty biased in your judgement aren't you?? Can't look past labels. What else? skin color? religion? region of the country?

[Doc]

I see Mick went with Obama. That surprises me. I mean this guy names his Christmas tree after Obama so how could he consider him the worse president?

[KeithKSR]

As far as a third term goes, if Christie ran against Obama, Christie would probably whip Obama's butt right now, but if the GOP goes with any of the Tea Party loonies, Obama might be able to squeak out a win. As moderate I would vote for Christie as of now, but I will never in a million years vote for anyone associated with the Tea Party.

There are a wide range of individuals that have been labeled as being in the TEA Party, the tie that binds is that they are fiscally conservative. In other areas their philosophies run the gamut. I vote for individuals, not the party, because when you get away from the extremes there isn't a lot of difference.

[MTcatfan]

There are a wide range of individuals that have been labeled as being in the TEA Party, the tie that binds is that they are fiscally conservative. In other areas their philosophies run the gamut. I vote for individuals, not the party, because when you get away from the extremes there isn't a lot of difference.

I vote for the individual also, I mean if you look at my first post since I have been able to vote for President, I have voted for Obama twice, Bush II twice, Clinton once, and Bush I once, so I am definitely one that looks at the individual. The thing is so far I have not seen one Tea Party person that I would vote for, so that is why I tend to paint with a broad brush with the Tea Party. Notice I said TEA PARTY, not Republican, because while I have yet to see any Tea Party candidate I would vote for in any type of election, there are Republicans that I do vote for and will vote for in any election.

As moderate I would vote for Christie as of now, but I will never in a million years vote for anyone associated with the Tea Party.

Pretty biased in your judgement aren't you?? Can't look past labels. What else? skin color? religion? region of the country?

I can look past labels easily, hopefully you read my response above to Keith. I will say again for emphasis, I will vote for a Republican, I will vote for a Democrat, and I have yet to find a single Tea Party candidate that I would vote for. I personally don't care what the person's sex, age, religion, skin color or where they are from(except maybe North Dakota... to a Montanan North Dakota=Tennessee to a Kentuckian) if they are a good candidate I will vote for them. I guess when I see the Tea Party I just don't see a candidate I can support, there have been a couple of Tea Partiers in local elections(or Constitution Party candidates as they call themselves in Montana and predate the Tea Party), and in Montana elections and I just can't support them, their world views are off the wall or in my local elections are just the most racist people around. As far as the viable Presidential candidates, I just don't like Cruz, Paul, Rubio, Perry, Huckabee, Cain, Santorum, and probably a couple others I can't remember, that I believe are all Tea Party darlings, I just have issues with every single one of them. Like I said this isn't some sort of broad brush for all Republicans, I mean I would vote for Christie and he is a GOP member.

Now if it want to call it bias, you can call it bias, but how is that any different than how anyone chooses a candidate to vote for? I follow politics enough, and I am open minded enough, and I am a big enough researcher to make up my mind on every viable candidate, to run every single candidate through my personal beliefs in what I want to see in a candidate and then pick the one I will support while eliminating all other candidates. I guess I just don't see what it wrong with doing it that way? I mean how else am I supposed to pick a candidate?

[MTcatfan]

To my knowledge we didn't have any problems with voter ID in our recent primaries and it sure didnt keep blacks from voting.

For liberals voting fraud is fine because it usually helps them and they use MT
'S excuse. But if there us one single irregular vote from the GOP side, heaven help all of us from the hissy fit the liberals would throw.

There was fraud in Ohio last election, southern Ohio. Obama is Chicago politics, think Kennedy/Nixon/100,000 votes

I am just one that doesn't pretend that one side cheats more than the other, both sides cheat to get their way, that is just the American way of politics. Cheating is cheating and it shouldn't be tolerated, I just don't believe in the vast conspiracy theories that cheating on a wide scale could sway an election that was decided by 5 million votes. If it is closer, cheating can and does win elections, but there is no way a conspiracy as vast as what it would take to change enough states to change an Presidential election could exist without someone ratting it out. I mean voter fraud may change 1 or 2 states, but Obama won the electoral college by so much there just isn't any way voter fraud could have swayed the election by that much. If it sound to good to be true, then it is to good to be true...

[KeithKSR]

I vote for the individual also, I mean if you look at my first post since I have been able to vote for President, I have voted for Obama twice, Bush II twice, Clinton once, and Bush I once, so I am definitely one that looks at the individual. The thing is so far I have not seen one Tea Party person that I would vote for, so that is why I tend to paint with a broad brush with the Tea Party. Notice I said TEA PARTY, not Republican, because while I have yet to see any Tea Party candidate I would vote for in any type of election, there are Republicans that I do vote for and will vote for in any election.

There is a lot to like in a lot of the TEA party type candidates if one looks into realities and explores the distortions presented by the far left and the entrenched Republicans that fear losing their seats in Congress.

[Doc]

There is a lot to like in a lot of the TEA party type candidates if one looks into realities and explores the distortions presented by the far left and the entrenched Republicans that fear losing their seats in Congress.

Unfortunately it is not only the far left that has distorted the Tea Party. Some within the Republican party have done so as well. Some have use it to further their own agenda by manipulating it from within while others have done the same thru manipulation from the outside. Its a shame that a movement that was anti-establishment has fallen victim to the establishment.

[MickintheHam]

I vote for the individual also, I mean if you look at my first post since I have been able to vote for President, I have voted for Obama twice, Bush II twice, Clinton once, and Bush I once, so I am definitely one that looks at the individual. The thing is so far I have not seen one Tea Party person that I would vote for, so that is why I tend to paint with a broad brush with the Tea Party. Notice I said TEA PARTY, not Republican, because while I have yet to see any Tea Party candidate I would vote for in any type of election, there are Republicans that I do vote for and will vote for in any election.






I can look past labels easily, hopefully you read my response above to Keith. I will say again for emphasis, I will vote for a Republican, I will vote for a Democrat, and I have yet to find a single Tea Party candidate that I would vote for. I personally don't care what the person's sex, age, religion, skin color or where they are from(except maybe North Dakota... to a Montanan North Dakota=Tennessee to a Kentuckian) if they are a good candidate I will vote for them. I guess when I see the Tea Party I just don't see a candidate I can support, there have been a couple of Tea Partiers in local elections(or Constitution Party candidates as they call themselves in Montana and predate the Tea Party), and in Montana elections and I just can't support them, their world views are off the wall or in my local elections are just the most racist people around. As far as the viable Presidential candidates, I just don't like Cruz, Paul, Rubio, Perry, Huckabee, Cain, Santorum, and probably a couple others I can't remember, that I believe are all Tea Party darlings, I just have issues with every single one of them. Like I said this isn't some sort of broad brush for all Republicans, I mean I would vote for Christie and he is a GOP member.

Now if it want to call it bias, you can call it bias, but how is that any different than how anyone chooses a candidate to vote for? I follow politics enough, and I am open minded enough, and I am a big enough researcher to make up my mind on every viable candidate, to run every single candidate through my personal beliefs in what I want to see in a candidate and then pick the one I will support while eliminating all other candidates. I guess I just don't see what it wrong with doing it that way? I mean how else am I supposed to pick a candidate?

You labeled a fairly large segment of the population as loonies and then state you can't vote for anyone with that label. Now you are backtracking. But your biases and prejudice come through LOUD and CLEAR!

[MickintheHam]

I see Mick went with Obama. That surprises me. I mean this guy names his Christmas tree after Obama so how could he consider him the worse president?

Well it could have easily been Carter. The significant difference is Carter went after the Hostages in Iran, albeit a poorly executed attempt. I think he respected the military. Obama is letting our Marine rot in a Mexican jail and has nothing but contempt for the military.

Neither 20% interest rates or 0% interest rates do the country much good. So economics is pretty much a wash. Both are clueless.

[MTcatfan]

You labeled a fairly large segment of the population as loonies and then state you can't vote for anyone with that label. Now you are backtracking. But your biases and prejudice come through LOUD and CLEAR!

Mick what in the hell are you talking about? I don't like the Tea Party, that is my prerogative...Also if you actually READ what I typed I typed: if the GOP goes with any of the Tea Party loonies, Obama might be able to squeak out a win. and I am talking SPECIFICALLY about a Presidential election, therefore logically I am calling Cruz, Paul, Cain, Huckabee, Rubio, Perry, and Santorum loonies, I am NOT calling a fairly large segment of the population. To suggest otherwise is asinine, as I am CLEARLY talking about the handful of no more than 10 Tea Party potential Presidential candidates. Please try to not to put words in my mouth, I know how I feel about the Tea Party, and something tells me it mirrors how you feel about Democrats. Plus my further explanation of things isn't back tracking, it is clarifying something you OBVIOUSLY misinterpreted.

Plus how did I backtrack, I still stated in my response that I will not vote for any Tea Party candidate, and it is not prejudice and bias, it is just that I have NO political ideology in common with them(actually I will backtrack a minute here, there are SOME philosophies I do agree with them, but when I take their views as a WHOLE, I just could never vote for any of them, look you are either for less government in EVERY aspect, or you are not, and to me most Tea Partiers are not for less government, they just want to shift the government to fit their view of government, which I do not entirely agree). I guess I also don't understand why it is wrong to have bias', I mean we all have them right? How do we come up with our political affiliations and our political ideology? Aren't forming ANY opinions based on a certain amount of bias? I mean what do you base your political views on?


Also stop beating around the bush, come out and tell me what prejudice I am having coming through loud and clear? I do have prejudices, as does everyone, but I am not prejudiced based on race, sex, religion, etc. I love all people, but that doesn't mean that I am going to vote for Rand Paul, and his being a white, Christian has nothing to do with anything(though that dead squirrel on his head I may be against), I just don't agree with his political views, views he has every right to have, and views I have every damn right to disagree with without being called biased or prejudiced...

[KeithKSR]

Unfortunately it is not only the far left that has distorted the Tea Party. Some within the Republican party have done so as well. Some have use it to further their own agenda by manipulating it from within while others have done the same thru manipulation from the outside. Its a shame that a movement that was anti-establishment has fallen victim to the establishment.

That is very true, and why I included entrenched Republicans among those that have distorted TEA Party positions.

[KeithKSR]

Looking at your list of "loonies" I see the bulk of the members of the GOP likely to win a national election. The only negative I have seen on Rubio is that he had to drink water while giving a televised rebuttal. Rand Paul is more of a Libertarian, and focuses on individual rights. Santorum says some goofy things. Cain and the Tea Party?

If the TEA Party types are racists how can the minorities be included?

[Doc]

Looking at your list of "loonies" I see the bulk of the members of the GOP likely to win a national election. The only negative I have seen on Rubio is that he had to drink water while giving a televised rebuttal. Rand Paul is more of a Libertarian, and focuses on individual rights. Santorum says some goofy things. Cain and the Tea Party?

If the TEA Party types are racists how can the minorities be included?

I'm a big Rubio fan and have been for years. He is far from a loon. Only a couple things that have been controversial with him. One being the immigration aspect but then his history certainly makes that understandable. Also there was some "creationism" issue, stuff about the age of the earth. In my book none of that matters. What one believes religiously is their beliefs and has no relevance to how they should govern so long as they keep their beliefs out of how they govern. Its one of the few aspects I don't like about Huckabee. Its one of the big things I don't like about Santorum. But back to Rubio, he is pretty much a no nonsense and logical person. If he runs, I'd vote for him in a heart beat.

[KSRBEvans]

WOOO HOOO--- at least somebody agrees with me.

Doc, that's me. Carter is the guy who made me a Reagan Republican. People forget how bad things were in 1980 after less than 4 years of Jimmy Carter. As bad as the financial crisis of 2008 was, I remember the stagflation of the Carter Era as being worse. The double-digit inflation was a cancer in the paycheck of those Americans who had jobs. Carter's impotent attempt to control that through wage and price controls was laughed at even by members of his own party.

As for defense and foreign policy: other than the Camp David Treaty, I can't think of one Carter initiative that wasn't a disaster.

And don't get me started on the whiny little "malaise" speech.

I put LBJ slightly ahead of Carter. Even though his Great Society and Vietnam War initiatives were huge mistakes, his support for the Civil Rights Act and the Voting Rights Act puts him slightly ahead of Carter for me.

One can make a good argument for Obama and I won't fault those who list him there. But the suckitude of the Carter Era needs more prominence than it's given--hence, my vote.

[dan_bgblue]

What tipped the scale for me between Carter and LBJ, was that LBJ knew exactly what he was doing and why, but Carter did not have a clue.

[Doc]

Doc, that's me. Carter is the guy who made me a Reagan Republican. People forget how bad things were in 1980 after less than 4 years of Jimmy Carter. As bad as the financial crisis of 2008 was, I remember the stagflation of the Carter Era as being worse. The double-digit inflation was a cancer in the paycheck of those Americans who had jobs. Carter's impotent attempt to control that through wage and price controls was laughed at even by members of his own party.

As for defense and foreign policy: other than the Camp David Treaty, I can't think of one Carter initiative that wasn't a disaster.

And don't get me started on the whiny little "malaise" speech.

I put LBJ slightly ahead of Carter. Even though his Great Society and Vietnam War initiatives were huge mistakes, his support for the Civil Rights Act and the Voting Rights Act puts him slightly ahead of Carter for me.

One can make a good argument for Obama and I won't fault those who list him there. But the suckitude of the Carter Era needs more prominence than it's given--hence, my vote.

Yeah, its a "Public" poll meaning you can see who voted for whom by clicking on the number. I was getting lonely. I was a little tike but still recall how bad he was

[badrose]

What tipped the scale for me between Carter and LBJ, was that LBJ knew exactly what he was doing and why, but Carter did not have a clue.

Which is why I picked Obama. It's hard to watch what he's done and not believe he hates this country.

[CitizenBBN]

mtcatfan -

I'm curious what Paul and Rubio have done to be given the "loonies" label.

FWIW I agree there are some definite loonies in the broad "tea party" umbrella, but as Keith said the "Tea Party" is really a populist political movement and as such beyond a general level of fiscal conservatism their philosophies are all over the map. Some are socially conservative, but most are pretty Libertarian, including Rand Paul.

It's true that as a bit of an isolationist and Libertarian he has some less mainstream views on those issues, but not sure that's nearly enough to raise him to "looney". Rubio I really don't get at all, he's not even out of step on those issues.

I consider myself a libertarian and while no candidate is ideal, I could live with Paul b/c of his basic philosophy and desire to dismantle the post Great Society victim society as much as possible, knowing we'd also scale back on the use of force abroad and that would be a mixed bag for us.

Is it Libertarianism itself that is looney or just something Paul et al specifically embraces within it that is the issue? I agree completely there are elements within the Tea Party and Libertarians who are everywhere from on the fringe to card carrying nut jobs, but I don't see that in some of the major national guys you listed.

[jazyd]

I no longer support the many tea parties in Miss after our senate primary. The tea party and their Trojan horse candidate turned me and many others against them. And forced us to vote for an incumbent

But to call all those people loonies, not going to say what I think.

Like doc I like Rubio., like Paul. They may be supported by tea party but I doubt they are true to that movement.

The tea party was a good movement in the beginning and what they wanted, but now they are no different than the radical left. It's their way or else . Take Hannity who is all in with the tea party. He said on his show that anyone who voted for Cochran is a rino. He also told all in miss who voted for McDaniels to not vote in the general election even if it meant not taking the senate back just to show up the GOP. That's looney.

[KeithKSR]

I no longer support the many tea parties in Miss after our senate primary. The tea party and their Trojan horse candidate turned me and many others against them. And forced us to vote for an incumbent

But to call all those people loonies, not going to say what I think.

Like doc I like Rubio., like Paul. They may be supported by tea party but I doubt they are true to that movement.

The tea party was a good movement in the beginning and what they wanted, but now they are no different than the radical left. It's their way or else . Take Hannity who is all in with the tea party. He said on his show that anyone who voted for Cochran is a rino. He also told all in miss who voted for McDaniels to not vote in the general election even if it meant not taking the senate back just to show up the GOP. That's looney.

That election in Mississippi was a mess. The voters of Mississippi didn't have a good choice no matter what they did. Both campaigns stepped over the line in their tactics.

[Doc]

As for the tea party, I'm so mad I could spit. It started out as a grass roots movement by real people who were sick and tired of the bullshit politics where every problem was simply "solved" by throwing more money at it. Where problems were "solved" by making back room deals to get people re-elected and bring money to their district at the expense of the nation. The original Tea Partier's were just sick and tired of that and wanted something different. Then in stepped the politicians like Sarah Palin. Sean Hannity and others on the right who felt they could infiltrate it to THEIR advantage and politicians like Nancy Pelosi and Harry Reid on the left who felt they could discredit it to THEIR advantage. The entire purpose of it was that it wasn't an organization but rather an unorganized movement of people who were just sick of the same ol same ol. It was people who wanted real change and then the folks who the old establishment got the dirty grubby hands on it because it suited their purpose. So while folks like MT and Jazy might by disgusted by the Tea Party it isn't the Tea Party that they should be angry with. Its the posers who ripped it off.