I hope you do.
The biggest event every four years that happen in United States.
Oh you probably know it by now.
Why ask for change when the only real difference is the Skin color?
That was the question I asked when i was a secondary one student.
Change, was the message he circulated to his supporters, so what change was there?
A better relation with middle east? Fine, reason accepted.
Why President Obama sucksAlmost three years ago, I was one of the roughly 100,000 people in Grant Park celebrating the election of Barack Obama. However, today, if the Wall Street Journal polled me on President Obama, I would say I disapprove of the job he’s done as president.
I’m not alone. Early Tuesday morning, two new polls came out showing President Obama’s approval ratings at an all time low. ABC News/Washington Post poll has his approval at 43% with disapproval ratings of 53%. NBC News/Wall Street Journal poll has his approval at 44% with a disapproval rating of 51%.
73% of those polled in the NBC/WSJ poll felt the nation was on the wrong track; while 19% thought the nation was headed in the right direction.
I’m left wondering who is that 19 percent?
President Obama has some real problems if I’m flirting with Mitt Romney. I’m a left leaning, black, urban professional with a law degree. Thinking back to 2008 and the type of voter Obama did well with, I hit all of the demographics: I’m black, college-degreed and live in an urban center (Chicago at that). If I’m thinking of abandoning him, then he has some real problems.
The reason I’m reading Mitt Romney’s economic plan is because it doesn’t appear Obama has one. He’s been in office well over two years and he has to give another speech on his jobs plan? Unemployment has been over 9% for two years. Why don’t I know about his jobs plan already?
And the drama about the speech highlights his real problem: the President of the United States has no spine. The President of the United States wanted to give his jobs speech on Wednesday but backed down after Republicans condemned him for his timing. I am bone tired of the President wanting to do something, Republicans blasting him for it and him backing down. It doesn’t matter what he does, Republicans will blast him; he needs to act like he’s the President rather than getting permission from John Boehner to take a piss.
Would George W. Bush change the timing of a speech to placate Democrats?
Another example: President Obama wanted to close the prison at Guantanamo Bay. Republicans argued that security would be compromised and the prison is still open. Question: If President George W. Bush wanted to close Guantanamo Bay, would it still be open?
As much as President Bush’s policies can be questioned at least he knew he was the President and acted like it. Instead acting like the President and leading Americans, Obama tries to build consensus by giving speeches and delegates everything to Congress. Think about the debt ceiling debate, he implored Congress to get him a proposal instead of creating and fighting for his own plan. The same is true with his landmark piece of legislation, health care. Republicans mistakenly call it Obamacare, like he was the one who created it. It should be called Pelosicare. Like everything else, Obama gave speeches imploring Congress to pass universal healthcare and then went off somewhere hoping Congress would give him something sign.
It is a very long time until Americans decide whether Barack Obama is a one-term president. A lot of things can happen which could sway Americans back into his camp. But if Barack Obama really wants to continue being the President of the United States, he needs to get someone in the Oval Office to teach him how to act like it. If he starts acting like the President, rather than whining about Congress (which is more vulnerable than he is) and delegating everything to it, his approval ratings might go up.
Exactly. Why. He. Suck.
No offense, but he seems like a figurehead.
America is... to me... kind of doomed.
Why? cause even candidates of the republican side seems weak.
Mitt Romney insulted people's religion.
I mean, why?
Shouldn't the president, among all people, be the most accepting?
But he insulted the religions of others.
Just look at this article.
Truth and Consequences: Mitt Romney, Proposition 8, and Public Reason
AbstractAlthough formal religious tests for federal office are constitutionally prohibited, they have long been fact of political life in presidential elections. John Kennedy remains the only nonProtestant ever elected President. The “Judeo-Christian tradition” notwithstanding, no major party has ever nominated a Jew for president—let alone a Buddhist, Hindu, Mormon, Muslim, or unbeliever.
Against this electoral history, it was perhaps predictable that mainstream Christian commentators would feel free to legitimate religious attacks on Mitt Romney during the Republican presidential primaries on the ground that Mormonism is a “false” religion. Ironically, however, the Mormon church periodically intervenes in initiative and ratification campaigns to defend “true” or “divine” principles that it believes ought to be enforced by law and reflected in public policy. How upset are folks entitled to get when their church is labeled “false” in an electoral campaign, if the church itself regularly participates in such campaigns on the basis of religious truth and falsity?
My purpose in this Essay is to examine the deployment of religious truth-claims in electoral politics, through the lenses of Gov. Romney’s unsuccessful campaign for the Republican nomination and the LDS church’s participation in the successful Proposition 8 campaign to ban same-sex marriage in California. I will argue that in contemporary electoral politics, attacks on the truth of a religion make little sense in light of the pluralism and postmodernism that now characterize the contemporary United States, but are a likely consequence when the religion itself introduces such truth-claims into electoral politics.
I argue religious pluralism and contemporary postmodern sensibilities now preclude any religion from plausibly asserting in public contexts that its claims are true to the exclusion of all others. In such a culture, the introduction of religious truth-claims into electoral campaigns presents distinct disadvantages and dangers to liberal democracy, particularly when done from the right. I illustrate the deleterious effects of such claims, and the corresponding virtues of public reason, by reference to the attacks on Romney’s Mormonism during the Republican primaries and the Mormon church’s support of Proposition 8. I close with some observations about the necessary priority of pluralism to truth in electoral politics.
Ok, lemme explain.
Yes, my belief is similar to Romney, but why did he need to make a statement about something that didn't really matter? He should talk less about it, and talk more about the pressing issues in United States.
Focus, boy. Focus.
Now time for me to focus on my work.
Facing the route ahead, should I transfer course?
If I do, I will do it with no regrets.
Business informatics, or engineering, no problem.
I just want to live life.
But of course, I can choose not to.
Let's just see what comes out.
And when November approaches, I would know the answer to that question, as well.