Skip to main content

Today's Poll: If all five of these names appeared on the presidential ballot, who would you vote for?

By Howard B. Owens
John Woodworth JR

I am voting for anyone but, Obama! Especially since, he has broken his campaign promises such as cutting the deficit in half. He has created more debt than any President in history. He called Bush “un-patriotic!" I do recall he was going to immediately pull out of Afghanistan and Iraq, which he did not! Then gets involved with the Muslim Brotherhood and bombs Libya. Before all you that say, it was to help the people of Egypt and Libya, let me remind you of Iran and Syria who are going through the same issues. The programs he did start are going to put us in further debt! He states he is for the average American yet, his fund raising dinners are 35K per plate leaving out the middle and lower classes! Besides he already has over a billion dollars raised so, why raise more? Oh I know to help hide his failures! Then he wants the middle and upper classes to support the lazy of society. Why should anyone work when Obama will help you collect someone else's hard earned dollars?

Mar 2, 2012, 12:54pm Permalink
John Woodworth JR

War Loving Spendahloics? Then you have Ron Paul who economics plan sounds good but, out of touch with the rest of the world and living in his fantasyland where everyone will play nice and no one will fight and we will all kiss and make up and hold hands. He is so far out of touch with reality it boggles my mind. I am not war loving but, I know that even if you leave for example the radical Muslims alone, they will not stop coming after American or Israel. Why do you think they attack on 9-11? Before 9-11 we had Embassies attacked, business in foreign countries attacked that had a large American present and the bombing of the USS COLE! We did nothing, (Until the attack on the USS COLE we launched a minor missile attack on the Taliban and Al-Qaida in Afghanistan.) which to them made us look weak and not willing to fight. Why do Americans try to rationalize these radical Muslims way of thinking? They do not see things the way we do; they do not think the way we do; they do not believe in what we do!

I will give you this Terry our political system is broken and in dire need of repair but, Paul is not the answer either. If, you could take bits and pieces from each candidate then we could have a near perfect President. Congress and the Senate have become more self-serving and failed to represent the “PEOPLE” and favor the almight green backs! They talk about cuts but, fail to target themselves such as term limits, removal of retirement benefits in which they, only have to serve one term and receive nearly all of their annual salaries!

Mar 2, 2012, 1:20pm Permalink
Phil Ricci

John,

We did nothing, (Until the attack on the USS COLE we launched a minor missile attack on the Taliban and Al-Qaida in Afghanistan.) which to them made us look weak and not willing to fight. Why do Americans try to rationalize these radical Muslims way of thinking? They do not see things the way we do; they do not think the way we do; they do not believe in what we do!

Please tell me this is a joke? We did nothing? Are you serious? Half the reason why Al-Qaida existed is because we gave them money! We played favorites and we were wrong, then we sent our men and women to die for it. People who never served a day in their life cast that vote!

Paul isn't perfect, but isn't trying to bomb everyone, or break into their homes, take their food away as a method to punish their government, or any other BS tatic that hasn't worked! Oh and he doesn't want to waste his time discussiing who can marry who, or calling people in school snobs, or driving 20 Caddies, or just out right lying about everything else!

If that is considered out of touch...I'm with him!

Mar 2, 2012, 1:42pm Permalink
Ed Gentner

John you left out that Obama is a socialist follower of Islam who regularly attended church services with Rev. Wright as his pastor for 20 years, was born in Kenya as part of a left wing conspiracy to indocrinate future generations of American to surrender to Iran or North Lorea while turning his back on Israel, destroy, out law religion and the first and second amedment. Did I neglect or leave anything out?

Mar 2, 2012, 4:18pm Permalink
John Woodworth JR

Yes Phil we supported Osama Bin Laden during the Russian Invasion of Afghanistan and Saddam Hussein during the Iran and Iraq War. Al-Qaida wasn't not formed official at this time. When I said we did nothing is that we did not retaliate against them when they hit our Embassies, killed our citizens and soldiers before 9-11. We were view as weak and unwilling to fight when we suffered causalities. When the USS COLE was attacked, we launch a minor missile attack. Paul thinks we are the blame for these attacks! We did not engage in the Iraq & Iran War, Russian Invasion we supported our now enemies. We have done more to help the Muslim world yet; we are viewed as the devil. Osama claimed we were occupying Saudi Arabia but, it was the Saudi King and Kuwaiti government who invited us and asked for our help to defend and keep their countries free. Do I think we should be the world police, heck no! I am tired of deploying and defending arseholes, which do not respect and back stab us.

I have no issues with Ron Paul other than his international policies. Do I think closing all bases overseas down is smart? No but, I do think it would be good to close all but, a hand full. Remember, if we close all these military bases down, where do we put them? We are cutting our military members, yet I have seen no plans on how to employ them. We put our neck on the line for the citizens and country of the United States of America but, still get treated like dirt! So, I hear all these plans about downsizing our military and yet no one tells you how to incorporate our soldiers back into society. Honestly some stated, “Put them on our border.” Why? We had military presents there during the Bush Administration yet, they had no power other than to observe. ACLU and couple others BS organizations are worry about violating someone’s Constitutional Rights (They are not US Citizens they have no Constitutional Rights!) but, they are not concerned about what threats they bring into this country! I am all for people wanting to live the American Dream but, damn it people do not see that there are those that want to destroy that dream!

Like I stated, I would be interested in seeing Paul’s economic plan in action but, he is not fully rational! Really Phil, Ron Paul is no freaking different than any of the other candidates when it comes to lying, THEY ALL DO. They say what you want to hear and it is all about them. If you really believe that Ron Paul is honest than you must be gullible. Are you one of these people who supported Obama? If so, hmmm?

Mar 2, 2012, 4:50pm Permalink
Jeff Allen

Ed, "who regularly attended church services with Rev. Wright as his pastor for 20 years" that came from Obama himself, it's in his book, it's just that once Wright's rhetoric became toxic he claimed to have not been there those particular Sundays.

Mar 2, 2012, 4:51pm Permalink
John Woodworth JR

Sorry Ed! Obama is by far the worst President ever in American History. This is not because, of his color or religion preference but, he is a weak leader, takes credit for others' hard work, is lazy and rather sit back and play golf instead of working out issues, uses threats and scare tactics to try to get his way. Heck, I can go on and on. Like I stated the American people better start making these politician answer to them soon. I am ashamed to call myself a Democrat! Now once again, I am forced to support a Republican. :-(

Oh, one more thing, Obama stated, that increasing production of oil is not going to help lower gasoline prices! BS, why do you think the OPEC nations cut production of oil? It was because, it caused the price of oil to go down.

Mar 2, 2012, 5:03pm Permalink
Jeff Allen

I know this will likely go unanswered, but Obama has gotten the majority of the votes. Can one of you outline exactly why we would benefit from 4 more years of this guy? Specifics, not talking points and based solely on his "accomplishments" from his first term.

Mar 2, 2012, 5:22pm Permalink
Ed Gentner

Worse than G.W Bush? The president who lied the country into a war that cost the lives of nearly 5,000 American military, another 2,000 NATO troops and God knows how many Iraqis, tens of thousands of wouded Vets and the 1200+ killed in Afghanistan, without paying for either war, opting instead for cutting taxes for corporations and the wealthiest Anericans, failed to get Bin Laden because he was distracted by Cheney and his neo-con crew ginning up the Iraq invasion, yeah Obama has got to be the worst President in history, bailing out the auto industry, getting Bin Laden and keeping the economy afloat after GWB and his buddies damn near sank it.

Nobody is forcing you to vote for one of the clowns running on the Republican side John, but I will agree with you on one point, I too am ashamed that you call yourself a Democrat.

Mar 2, 2012, 8:33pm Permalink
Tyler Hall

ATTN SPONSORS................ lol i love the results of this poll. it's definitely really similar to what the majority of genesee county thinks. obv the majority of genesee county visits this site.

Mar 2, 2012, 9:55pm Permalink
John Woodworth JR

Well Ed let me ask you this. Who else did he bailout? Hmmm, Banks and Financial Institutions! What did we get out of that? Them misusing the monies giving out big bonuses to the dumasses that cause this collapse in the first place by over inflating their numbers! Higher credit card interest rates and additional BS fees. How did Bush cause the Housing collapse? He did not, Clinton forcing the Banks to give loans to people who could not afford them in the first place. So, GM is a success story? It help exactly what? I mean other than stabilizing them long enough to collect themselves. How many factories were shut down Ed? How many people still lost their job Ed? I am glad GM is coming back but, honestly Ed it save some jobs not all. The economy is afloat? We must be in a different world. One other thing, I believe Toyota pulled themselves out of a massive collapse caused by the tsunami. Oh, did not Ford pretty much help pull themselves out of the economic collapse with little assistant from Obama? Bush put the US in debt but, Obama has caused more debt in less than four years than, Bush did in eight.

Ed you must think Saddam was stupid. After all our intelligence lied in your eyes about WMDs. Really, I have no doubt Saddam did have them. He delayed and played the United Nations like a fiddle. Where are these weapons you may ask? I am guessing in Syria and/or Iran. After the end of the main war we had two IEDs hit units in Northern Iraq that contain Chemical Agents but, where did they come from? Lucky from Lucky Charms? This is the same man that buried Sixty, that is a 6 and a 0 together Ed; fully fueled and armed fighter aircraft. He buried them to evade the Ally Bombings.

I am disagreeing with your comment no one is forcing me to vote Republican. It is ignorant and arrogant knuckleheads in this country that actually believe Obama is helping this country! He causing this country to collapse further. However, the lazy of society love him because, he is allowing them to be lazy while having others work for their needs. It is amazing all these committees that he is putting together and paying them with taxpayer dollars. Sounds like more loans coming in from China. Ed, how high should we allow our debt ceiling to rise? That is helping our economy stay afloat, just joking, it is not helping. BTW, I heard Obama is threatening military action against Iran to stop their attempt to gain Nuclear Weapons but, maybe Ed they do not exist either.

Mar 3, 2012, 12:32am Permalink
John Woodworth JR

Bush may of started them but, you do know Obama continued them, right? Just like some people blame Bush for the housing collapse yet it was Clinton who started it. I do not remember Bush bailing out Financial Institution either but, you did not stated that. Sorry.

Mar 3, 2012, 12:27am Permalink
Beth Kinsley

Please explain what you mean when you say Obama continued them? TARP was under Bush, not Obama and a bank is a financial institution. Many people are as misinformed as you are though John:

In numerous polls, the public has voiced their displeasure at the much maligned bank bailout, but most don't know which president signed the controversial act into law. Only a third of Americans (34%) correctly say the Troubled Asset Relief Program (TARP) was enacted by the Bush administration. Nearly half (47%) incorrectly believe TARP was passed under President Obama. Another 19% admit they do not know which president signed the bank bailout into law. Notably, there is no partisan divide on the question. Just 36% of Republicans, 35% of independents and 34% of Democrats know that the government bailout of banks and financial institutions was signed into law by former President Bush. And Democrats (46%) are just as likely as Republicans (50%) to say TARP was passed under Obama.

http://pewresearch.org/databank/dailynumber/?NumberID=1057

Mar 3, 2012, 12:53am Permalink
Daniel Jones

Even though giving the banks more money isn't the most popular idea, TARP probably saved the American financial industry from going into a total tailspin and may have helped prevent a second great depression; the government also collected interest on the loans. It may not be convenient to ideological doctrinaires on both ends, but it along with the stimulus put a floor on the recession and allowed for slow growth, which is remarkable because of a European financial crisis and an oil crisis in the Strait of Hormuz.

A vote for any of the Republicans is going backwards to the same one sized fits all economic theory that got us into this mess in the first place, there had been almost 2 years of straight job losses (including record losses right before Obama took office) that were ended by Obama's economic policies. The falling unemployment rate is proof of this.

Also, before the debt argument comes up, the Bush tax cuts cost more than any of Obama's recovery measures combined. This notion that he doubled the debt does not mesh with facts or common sense. http://talkingpointsmemo.com/images/CBPPpublicdebt.jpg

Mar 3, 2012, 1:47am Permalink
Daniel Jones

CM - No, but thank God small investors and the entire economy doesn't get flushed into a second depression because Washington refused to act while the financial industry was melting down. It prevented the absolute worst case scenario from occurring. That being said, we need smarter regulations and have had an investment strategy in Main Street, the result of which is the falling unemployment rate (down from around ten percent in '09 to around 8 percent today) and the fact that a floor was put on the recession. We need to couple an 'invest and grow' strategy with the rebounding financial sector, which is what this President has been doing despite world-wide economic unrest due to the Europeans (not just the Greeks, the Germans austerity policies helped cause the crisis) and major security crisis' happening in the middle east from Syria to Iran. President Obama is helping America weather the storm with a solutions based agenda and steady leadership.

Mar 3, 2012, 2:54am Permalink
Jeff Allen

TARP was the final and greatest evidence that GW Bush was not a true Conservative. It opened the door to a scale of government involvement in the private sector and free market manipulation that Obama gleefully followed at full speed with Porkulus, Obamacare, and GM/Chrysler/UAW shakedown.

Mar 3, 2012, 5:02am Permalink
Charlie Mallow

Then maybe the last thing we need is a "true" conservative in the White House. We see what we get when we populate Congress with true Conservatives, a dysfunctional mess.

Mar 3, 2012, 8:12am Permalink
Howard B. Owens

Apparently, Tyler doesn't believe most voters in Genesee County are Republicans. Or something. I'm not really sure what he's saying.

Mar 3, 2012, 8:50am Permalink
Daniel Jones

How about pursuing good policies regardless of where they start instead of being on a quest for what's ideologically 'pure'. Almost everyone has a core of being either left or right of center, but where did having a moderate attitude become a bad thing? Remember that moderate President Bill Clinton? He worked with and against the Republican Congress and created tens of millions of jobs, had the lowest unemployment rate in decades and wiped out the deficit.

Andrew Cuomo 2016!

Mar 3, 2012, 11:53am Permalink
C. M. Barons

In the long-run, the government stands to profit (greatly) from TARP loans- whenever they are repaid. ...the use and application of those loans is another story:

http://jonathanturley.org/2008/10/28/jpmorgan-chase-executive-admits-th…

JPMorgan Chase Executive Admits that Bailout Will Be Used Not To Make New Loans But to Buy Other Companies
Published 1, October 28, 2008 Bizarre , Congress , Politics , Society48 Comments

For those who opposed the massive bailout, a report in the New York Times may be little surprise. A reporter was able to get into a telephone conference call with JPMorgan Chase to hear executives discuss the $25 billion it received from Congress. Just four days after the bailout, JPMorgan Chase’s chief executive, Jamie Dimon held the conference call during which an executive admitted that Chase has no intention to use the money to make new loans but instead will use it to try to take over other companies.

The critical moment on the Oct. 17th call came when someone asked “Chase recently received $25 billion in federal funding. What effect will that have on the business side and will it change our strategic lending policy?”

Here is the response:

“Twenty-five billion dollars is obviously going to help the folks who are struggling more than Chase. What we do think it will help us do is perhaps be a little bit more active on the acquisition side or opportunistic side for some banks who are still struggling. And I would not assume that we are done on the acquisition side just because of the Washington Mutual and Bear Stearns mergers. I think there are going to be some great opportunities for us to grow in this environment, and I think we have an opportunity to use that $25 billion in that way and obviously depending on whether recession turns into depression or what happens in the future, you know, we have that as a backstop.”

Mar 3, 2012, 3:05pm Permalink
Ed Gentner

So the choice comes down to the following on the Republican side; Mitt Romney whose family tradition is to sit at home and cheerlead for war or claim a religuos exemption while still cheerleading for a war or wars his grandfather avoided service in WW1, his father in WW2, Mitt during Viet Nam, and his five sons who never served; Newt Gingich who sought multiple deferements opting out of service during the Viet Nam war: Rick Santorum whose right to l;ife campaign stops as soon as a birth takes place and loves to beat the drum for war;Ron Paul who served in a war zone close to combat and is reluctant have our nation to engage in military conflicts except under the most extreme circumstances. Which one do you want to choose? One of the three chicken-hawks or the one who actually says what he means and means what he says? Paul has no chance, Newt is a legend in his own little world, Rick who sees himself as a modern day Savanarola, or Mitt who says whatever he thinks you want to hear he believes at the moment then changes what he believes minutes later, yeah Obama looks better with every passing day.

Mar 3, 2012, 6:23pm Permalink
Kyle Couchman

How about something sensible and unique.... Lets actually deal with our politician based on their policies and actions. I mean whats the difference between Democrats and Republicans or any other party affiliation. We all know they will lie and use smoke and mirrors to get our vote. Then do just what they want. It'd be interesting if people started running without party affiliation ignored the whole circus and just went around to "the people" and explained what they wanted to do. Without spending millions of dollars.

Let me ask you this people. Honestly if you had the usual circus politicians running for congress here doing the usual things like tv ads and dinners and debates. Then some guy shows up at our mall, sets up tables and then makes some coffee and orders some donuts, then has talks with us on what we want from a congressman or a senator. Refuses to spend any money on campaigning other than this local meeting style I just described, even walks out on a few debates when they obviously degrade into attacks and jibes rather than play the game. Would you vote for someone like this. I mean he will do this meet & greet style throughout the district he is attempting to get elected in.

Thats the kind of candidate I'm looking for.

Mar 4, 2012, 7:40am Permalink
John Roach

Ed,
Add that Obama decided not to serve his country in the military either, but was willing to bomb and kill Libyans and makes threats to Iran. Would you call him a "warmonger" who was afraid to serve himself?

Mar 4, 2012, 8:46am Permalink
Daniel Jones

John - Obama intervened in the face of a humanitarian catastrophe in Libya and only supports military action in Iran as a last resort. Romney has been a saber-rattler for years and is part of the party that criticized Clinton for being a 'draft-dodger'.

Mar 4, 2012, 11:57am Permalink
Howard B. Owens

For Obama to even discuss attacking Iran is provocative and only inflames the situation. If it's truly "last resort" thinking, it's utterly irresponsible.

Obama is no less a warmonger and neocon than anybody, save Ron Paul, Rand Paul and Gary Johnson, in the Republican Party.

Mar 4, 2012, 12:04pm Permalink
Daniel Jones

Howard - Obama's security policy is to engage in a limited way, mostly drones, special forces and air attacks rather than massive ground invasions that risk the lives of many more American soldiers. He is reluctant to go to war unless he has too, maybe because he never served and he has the self-awareness to realize that he never had nor will have to face combat, unlike many of the Republican candidates. His condemnations of Iran are focused, principled and are made because they are destabilizing the entire region.

Mar 4, 2012, 12:08pm Permalink
Daniel Jones

I respect Ron Paul for his opposition to interventionism. I disagree with him on many parts of it, but it has been long standing, consistent and has served a purpose of being the voice of the opposition on many occasions.

Mar 4, 2012, 12:11pm Permalink
John Roach

Dan,
If Obama was really interested in humanitarian use of force, he would be in Syria. He did it for oil. That may or may not be ok with some, but lets be consistent. The point is that Ed mentioned how many people running for office avoided military service. Obama is just another example of that. No way around it, he could have joined, but did not.

Mar 4, 2012, 12:13pm Permalink
Bea McManis

Kyle,
you had that candidate in C.M. He ran on a shoe string budget, made a lot of sense and was ridiculed by those one this site for not having the financial backing of the Democratic party. Although endorsed by the Democrats, he was and is a member of the Green Party.

Mar 4, 2012, 2:50pm Permalink
Daniel Jones

John - That's simply not true, what happened in Libya was part of an international operation and was not a full ground force invasion that risked thousands of American lives. Obama tried to get a UN resolution through the UN Security Council but it was vetoed by the Russians and the Chinese and is trying to allow the Arab League to rectify the situation before becoming involved. The world is not black and white, and all situations are not the same, applying that sort of thinking to foreign policy is a sure fire way to end in disaster.

Mar 5, 2012, 1:49am Permalink
Daniel Jones

Obama also did not support the disastrous security policies that defined the Bush years that costed thousands of American lives, like Romney did, while having never served nor having any of his family members serve.

Mar 5, 2012, 1:51am Permalink

Authentically Local