that would be exceptional, anyone would win

significantly though, I think he would WIN under these same circumstances if he were not black

we wouldnt be digging to discredit his citizenship
we wouldnt be digging to discredit his patriotism

we wouldnt have nearly the same ridiculous reaches of logic to distract from what have historically been acceptable and expected issues faced by a president after a severe recession,,,

I disagree. You see the same stuff from the opposing side throughout history. Each side tries to sling mud at the other and dig up everything they can (and make stuff up when all else fails)

I Believe there are people that have political reaons for not voting for him. I believe you to be one of those people. However, it is in the delivery and the logic that I assess when race seems to be the only LOGICAL difference between ones reaction to THIS president compared to how they view similar past presidents in similar situations.


the HATRED of the man on a personal level, well that pretty much leads me to the conclusion that its about race,,,

his errors have not been unique in the past forty years, yet they sure seem to weigh HEAVIER With some than they did regarding other presidents who made similar errors,,,

yes, and he has a UNIQUELY Different set of 'stuff', due to his race, that people can make seem more than it is,,,,

I agree that there are people that won't vote for him because of race. IMO he isn't any better than the other presidents we have had (regardless of race)

Seems the ones throwing out the race issue are the ones that are for him (not all though)

I would rather here why someone thinks I should vote for him instead of throwing out the race card as if that could be the only reason to not vote for him.

I don't buy into the whole birther thing, so I don't use that as a reason. My reasons are political. Personally I think we need a change just as I would think if he was a white president that (IMO) didn't do a good job

we have posted ad nauseum reasons to vote for him

this thread was simply a call to georgians to come to an event and immediately people threw objections and allegations to dampen the whole spirit of the original OP

as much as you would like to see people post reasons to vote for him (and we have)

I would love to see some LOGICAL (as opposed to emotional) reasons why people allege the things they do about him, UNIQUELY (meaning compared to other presidents who have done the SAME thing and still were elected or reelected)

I would like to see reasons for or against voting for him without the race card being used toward people they never met

But this is a political discussion. I understand wanting to rally people to the rally in Georgia but, truth be told, not everyone is pro Obama and posts happen on both sides.

I'd rather hear a good reasons for or against than have only those that are pro post. There should be an equal opportunity on all sides.

As far as why some presidents being re-elected when they messed the economy up or stupid bills or whatever....I don't know. I didn't vote to re-elect them

I'm a constitutionalist and have no loyalties to either side because they are both equally wrong IMO

I think some vote for the lesser of the evils (so to speak)

Personally....I might write in Ralph Wiggim from the Simpson. Hey he can't do any worse, can he?

I don't dis-like him because he is black but because he is a LIAR.

Yup.
And, I have changed and decided not to vote McDaddy if Robme gets the nomination.
I will again write in the best candidate. Ron Paul.

The media, the bankers, the congress, the corporations....ALL against Ron Paul!

If not for the reason that he actually HAS a plan to restore America, the fact of who supports the other two should be enough for anyone to vote for Paul!

and?

guess what, amongst the top twenty list of Paul nor Obama is any bank listed,,,not one congressperson

(and if they did, what would that prove?)

but both have plenty of 'corporations' fedex corp, intel corp, oracle corp are all on the top twenty of Pauls contributions

fedex and microsoft are also on OBamas


,,,these companies are FULL of individuals who vote and why is their money anymore or less suspect than any other citizens?

So you are saying that a segment of the 69 million voters that got him elected in 2008 have now decided not to vote for him simply because he is half black?

The economic failures and the massive expansion of debt have nothing to do with it?

The birther thing started during the democrat primary by Hillary supporters and was certainly a known issue before the election.

The same goes for his affiliations with Ayers and Wright..

All known commodities by election day and he still won..

Your argument would have merit if the economy was moving forward as they have historically after even the most severe recessions.

But to argue its all about his race and not his record is disingenuous and not based in reality.

nope, IM saying that a segment that OVERLOOKED him being blacked because they didnt like PALIN/MCCAIN ticket considered him an 'exception'

and because he hasnt risen HIGHER Than his non black counterparts, he will now go back to being the 'incompetent' negro they may have otherwise considered him to be

the economic 'failures' are only 'failures' because they didnt fit some unrealistic timeline,,,

the birther thing started and quickly ENDED with Hilary, except for that segment that took it and refuse to let it go,,,

every politician that has risen to the level of presidential nomination has worked with or associated with SOMEONE along that path who has had questionable background

'Your argument would have merit if the economy was moving forward as they have historically after even the most severe recessions.'


prove this statement,, show the numbers after 'severe recessions' that were different/better than what we have? make sure to compare other HISTORIC GLOBAL recessions

What makes this recovery seem so frustratingly slow is that the U.S. is coming out of a deeper hole this time. In the 1990-91 slump, employment fell by 1.6 million. The 2001 slump was worse: 2.7 million jobs lost. But neither comes close to the disaster of the 2007-2009 recession, when employment fell by 8.8 million.

To put it simply, if you fall down a well, you’ll climb out faster if it’s 10 feet deep than if it’s 100 feet deep.

The chart above shows job creation in the months after the economy hit bottom in each of the past three recessions. The last three low points were January 1991, November 2001, and June 2009. (The low point for the economy is designated by the National Bureau of Economic Research and doesn’t necessarily coincide with the low for employment.)

The most important takeaway from the chart is that there is no significant difference between the three recoveries in terms of rapidity. The current recovery is slow, all right, but it’s no slower than the two previous ones.

James Paulsen, the chief investment strategist at Wells Capital Management, called this pattern to my attention in a visit to the magazine this week. Paulsen has a similar chart in the 43-page deck of slides that he shows clients.

“People say the economy is broken,” Paulsen told me. “It’s not. This is the New Normal. And the New Normal is 25 years old.” The New Normal, he says, goes back to the mid-1980s, when the rate of labor-force growth notably slowed





...http://www.businessweek.com/articles/2012-05-04/putting-our-slow-jobs-recovery-into-perspective

The only reason that I would vote for Newt is that he is not Obama.

Is Obama black? I don't care. I would vote for a mormon or a jew if I agreed with their policies. I try to stay out of alleys.

Ask for and you shall receive..



Between 1980 and 1982 the U.S. economy experienced a deep recession.

In January 1980 the U.S. economy entered a recession that, at the time, was the most significant since the Great Depression. One of the causes of the early 1980s recession was the Iranian Revolution of 1979, which sparked a second large round of oil price increases. More important, however, were Federal Reserve Chairman Paul Volcker’s efforts to tame inflation through restrictive monetary policy, which had the expected effect of dampening economic growth. The American economy experienced a modest recovery beginning in the summer of 1980 but declined again from July 1981 to November 1982.

The robust recovery that followed remains the source of considerable dispute, with some giving credit to the stimulative effects of the Reagan era tax cuts (link to paper on 1981 OBRA and ERTA), others crediting the Reagan era defense buildup ("military Keynesianism"), and others pointing to the Fed’s gradual loosening of monetary policy.

The 1980-82 recession, which the National Bureau of Economic Research considers as two separate recessions (one lasting for the first six months of 1980, the other from July 1981 to November 1982), had modest political consequences for Ronald Reagan and the rest of the Republican Party. Public opinion polls showed widespread disapproval with Reagan’s handling of the economy, and Democrats gained 26 House seats in the 1982 midterm elections. Yet Reagan’s approval ratings recovered along with the economy in late 1982, and he easily won reelection in 1984.

http://bancroft.berkeley.edu/ROHO/projects/debt/1980srecession.html


This little narrative is exactly what I said about Obama. Poor economic performance leads to disapproval. Reagan would have lost in 1984 had the economy not turned around. Was he black?