Looking for a choice but didn't get one

[Steve R]

I'm a lifelong Socialist with no particular party affiliation. I have usually voted for the presidential candidate I consider the most competent and/or best representing my views. In 1968 I voted in protest for Eldridge Cleaver because I couldn't stomach Nixon or Humphrey. In 1984 I voted for Reagan because I couldn't imagine Mondale in office. In 2000 I voted for Gore because I lived in Texas with Bush as governor and thought he was an idiot.

Now it's 2012 and I was hoping to find a candidate who could oust Barack Obama, the man I consider the worst president in my lifetime. He's the worst because he has done more than any president in history to destroy American civil liberties and decimate the poor and the middle class in favor of the oligarchs. And he is a mass murdering war criminal to boot. He's a real bad guy. So it is distressing to me that the best the Republican Party could do is Mitt Romney, a vacant loser. Despite his enormous advantage in campaign contributions, amazingly he is falling further behind Obama in the polls following a disastrous trip to Europe and the Middle East where he confirmed just how empty his suit is. Anyone thinking this is the way to win elections is, in a word, nuts.

The problem IMO is that the Republicans have excluded from their ranks all mainstream party members in the tradition of Eisenhower, Ford or even Bush 41, any of which would get my vote if they were running today.

But alas, 2012 looks like another protest-vote year for me.

[Tom]

A protest vote is a vote for Obama.

[Steve R]

A protest vote is a vote for Obama.
I'm thinking Jill Stein since voting for either of the other two is equally wasted.

[TJDave]

I'm gonna vote for whoever pays me. I'll start the bidding at 50 cents. Less than that and I'll flip a coin.

Cash only.

[ArlJim78]

We're in agreement on Obama, he is a disaster.
I also agree that Romney is a hugely disappointing nominee on the Republican side.

Since you feel Obama is such a disaster as a president, does it even matter who the Republican nominee is? one more term for this guy would be the end of us. to me it's simple, he's got to go. I'd vote for a ham sandwich over Obama.

and about the polls, pay no attention. once we get into September and into full campaign/debate mode you will start to see a swing as people begin to think about things. Obama has offended everyone, including socialists like yourself.

[lamboguy]

I'm a lifelong Socialist with no particular party affiliation. I have usually voted for the presidential candidate I consider the most competent and/or best representing my views. In 1968 I voted in protest for Eldridge Cleaver because I couldn't stomach Nixon or Humphrey. In 1984 I voted for Reagan because I couldn't imagine Mondale in office. In 2000 I voted for Gore because I lived in Texas with Bush as governor and thought he was an idiot.

Now it's 2012 and I was hoping to find a candidate who could oust Barack Obama, the man I consider the worst president in my lifetime. He's the worst because he has done more than any president in history to destroy American civil liberties and decimate the poor and the middle class in favor of the oligarchs. And he is a mass murdering war criminal to boot. He's a real bad guy. So it is distressing to me that the best the Republican Party could do is Mitt Romney, a vacant loser. Despite his enormous advantage in campaign contributions, amazingly he is falling further behind Obama in the polls following a disastrous trip to Europe and the Middle East where he confirmed just how empty his suit is. Anyone thinking this is the way to win elections is, in a word, nuts.

The problem IMO is that the Republicans have excluded from their ranks all mainstream party members in the tradition of Eisenhower, Ford or even Bush 41, any of which would get my vote if they were running today.

But alas, 2012 looks like another protest-vote year for me.the republicans certainly had some great presidents throughout the years, going back further Harding and Calvin Coolidge. Eisenhower, Reagan, all great. those guys helped make this country strong and great. now its kind of a joke, no matter which party you favor.

[mostpost]

the republicans certainly had some great presidents throughout the years, going back further Harding and Calvin Coolidge. Eisenhower, Reagan, all great. those guys helped make this country strong and great. now its kind of a joke, no matter which party you favor.

Harding and Calvin Coolidge?? :lol: :lol: :lol: :lol: :lol: :lol: :lol: :lol: :lol: :lol: :lol: :lol: :lol: :lol: :lol: :lol: :lol: :lol: :lol: :lol: :lol: :lol: :lol:

Good one!!

[plainolebill]

I couldn't agree more Steve R., Obama is undoubtably the worst president I've seen in my nearly 70 years - a complete fraud. Romney, I'm afraid, will be more of the same.

[PhantomOnTour]

We're in agreement on Obama, he is a disaster.
I also agree that Romney is a hugely disappointing nominee on the Republican side.

Since you feel Obama is such a disaster as a president, does it even matter who the Republican nominee is? one more term for this guy would be the end of us. to me it's simple, he's got to go. I'd vote for a ham sandwich over Obama.
and about the polls, pay no attention. once we get into September and into full campaign/debate mode you will start to see a swing as people begin to think about things. Obama has offended everyone, including socialists like yourself.
That's the mindset that got Obama elected....ANYONE but a Republican.
Folks voted for a ham sandwich and that's what they got.

[NJ Stinks]

I couldn't agree more Steve R., Obama is undoubtably the worst president I've seen in my nearly 70 years - a complete fraud. Romney, I'm afraid, will be more of the same.

Here's a link to Obama's Top 50 Accomplishments as per The Washington Monthly. For a "complete fraud" and "the worst president", Barack managed to get a few things done between golf outings.


Link: http://www.washingtonmonthly.com/magazine/march_april_2012/features/obamas_top_50_accomplishments035755.php/

[newtothegame]

Here's a link to Obama's Top 50 Accomplishments as per The Washington Monthly. For a "complete fraud" and "the worst president", Barack managed to get a few things done between golf outings.


Link: http://www.washingtonmonthly.com/magazine/march_april_2012/features/obamas_top_50_accomplishments035755.php/

Amazingly, I guess we need to define "accomplishments" as good or bad...right stinky???

"1. Passed Health Care Reform: After five presidents over a century failed to create universal health insurance, signed the Affordable Care Act (2010). It will cover 32 million uninsured Americans beginning in 2014 and mandates a suite of experimental measures to cut health care cost growth, the number one cause of America’s long-term fiscal problems."

Really??? Would you like to talk about "cost"??? Or, should we talk about how many will be "dropped" from coverage? Or, is it a tax, or a penalty?? lol

2. Passed the Stimulus: Signed $787 billion American Recovery and Reinvestment Act in 2009 to spur economic growth amid greatest recession since the Great Depression. Weeks after stimulus went into effect, unemployment claims began to subside. Twelve months later, the private sector began producing more jobs than it was losing, and it has continued to do so for twenty-three straight months, creating a total of nearly 3.7 million new private-sector jobs.

Who was it that said if this was passed that unemployement would not go ABOVE 8%?? Can you please point to the month where it waqs UNDER 8%?? Not too mention the Solyndra's of the world who got all sorts of money...how did they fare??

"4. Ended the War in Iraq: Ordered all U.S. military forces out of the country. Last troops left on December 18, 2011."
He only mopped up what was left...and might I add, QUICKLY ESCALTED in Afghanistan...do we need to discuss Gunatanamo???

"
6. Eliminated Osama bin laden: In 2011, ordered special forces raid of secret compound in Abbottabad, Pakistan, in which the terrorist leader was killed and a trove of al-Qaeda documents was discovered.
There are many stories about his wavering and making this call....plus, he is the damn president of the U.S. he should of made the call! And, how was Bin Laden found again???

7. Turned Around U.S. Auto Industry: In 2009, injected $62 billion in federal money (on top of $13.4 billion in loans from the Bush administration) into ailing GM and Chrysler in return for equity stakes and agreements for massive restructuring. Since bottoming out in 2009, the auto industry has added more than 100,000 jobs. In 2011, the Big Three automakers all gained market share for the first time in two decades. The government expects to lose $16 billion of its investment, less if the price of the GM stock it still owns increases.
So, we ONLY expect to lose 16 billion....I feel good now!! lol
By the way, have you seem Obummers recent statements of wanting to do the same for ALL INDUSTRIES?? Guess he is bringing to big to fail to a whole other level....my only question is who is gonna pay for it? Maybe we can get China to help with that pay problem?? lol

11. Told Mubarak to Go: On February 1, 2011, publicly called on Egyptian President Hosni Mubarak to accept reform or step down, thus weakening the dictator’s position and putting America on the right side of the Arab Spring. Mubarak ended thirty-year rule when overthrown on February 11.

Obama speaks and world leaders cower...lol This is good! By the way, how is that Egyptian new government with the "brotherhood" working out???

12. Reversed Bush Torture Policies: Two days after taking office, nullified Bush-era rulings that had allowed detainees in U.S. custody to undergo certain “enhanced” interrogation techniques considered inhumane under the Geneva Conventions. Also released the secret Bush legal rulings supporting the use of these techniques.
And has ramped up the killing of many civilians with the use of drones.....yeah, A real humanitarian you got there NJ lol.

13. Improved America’s Image Abroad: With new policies, diplomacy, and rhetoric, reversed a sharp decline in world opinion toward the U.S. (and the corresponding loss of “soft power”) during the Bush years. From 2008 to 2011, favorable opinion toward the United States rose in ten of fifteen countries surveyed by the Pew Global Attitudes Project, with an average increase of 26 percent.
This one is a joke right?? Yep, the world looks at us in a whole new light....lmao

16. Boosted Fuel Efficiency Standards: Released new fuel efficiency standards in 2011 that will nearly double the fuel economy for cars and trucks by 2025.
Great thing where gas prices are now....If I can just make it till 2025...hmmmm

17. Coordinated International Response to Financial Crisis: To keep world economy out of recession in 2009 and 2010, helped secure from G-20 nations more than $500 billion for the IMF to provide lines of credit and other support to emerging market countries, which kept them liquid and avoided crises with their currencies.
Greece, Spain, Portugal....lmao You can not make this stuff up!!

We could go on and on...but what you see as accomplishments, I am seeing as complete failures and ADDING huge deficits to my grandchildren all the while...Guess I should be saying thinks somewhere lol.

[riskman]

Forty Two months of 8-plus percent unemployment, declining economic growth — all achieved at a price of additional trillions of accumulated debt.

Are you better off today than you were trillions of dollars ago? Look at the wreckage around you. This presidency is a failure by these standards alone. This is what I care about. All the rest of his accomplishments are on the back burner until Obama makes headway on the economy. It appears he does not have a valid plan. Give someone else a shot. November is a few months away. Time for a change in a different direction.Obama blew it.

[NJ Stinks]

Forty Two months of 8-plus percent unemployment, declining economic growth — all achieved at a price of additional trillions of accumulated debt.

Are you better off today than you were trillions of dollars ago? Look at the wreckage around you. This presidency is a failure by these standards alone. This is what I care about. All the rest of his accomplishments are on the back burner until Obama makes headway on the economy. It appears he does not have a valid plan. Give someone else a shot. November is a few months away. Time for a change in a different direction.Obama blew it.

Well, Riskman, the stock market is up about 5,000 points under Obama. What's that if not headway?

[newtothegame]

Well, Riskman, the stock market is up about 5,000 points under Obama. What's that if not headway?

There you go again with your non-sense......
On one hand you libs cry that people make terrible wages and live like paupers. remember, that's the whole reason for your "fair share" mantra.
So, and listen closely as I wouldn't want you to miss it stinky...if people are so poor and can barely make ends meet...what difference would the stock market make to them??? I mean I am sure they can not afford to invest right??? :bang:

[Marshall Bennett]

Harding and Calvin Coolidge?? :lol: :lol: :lol: :lol: :lol: :lol: :lol: :lol: :lol: :lol: :lol: :lol: :lol: :lol: :lol: :lol: :lol: :lol: :lol: :lol: :lol: :lol: :lol:

Good one!!
Yeah, those certainly aren't very good examples.

[Marshall Bennett]

Well, Riskman, the stock market is up about 5,000 points under Obama. What's that if not headway?
I'm not sure the market is a very good indicator of a president's performance anymore. Same was true with GWB. Too much can happen in a relatively short period a president has no control over.

[Tom]

Originally Posted by NJ Stinks
Well, Riskman, the stock market is up about 5,000 points under Obama. What's that if not headway?


It is irrelevant - Obama said that himself.

[Steve R]

Here's a link to Obama's Top 50 Accomplishments as per The Washington Monthly. For a "complete fraud" and "the worst president", Barack managed to get a few things done between golf outings.


Link: http://www.washingtonmonthly.com/magazine/march_april_2012/features/obamas_top_50_accomplishments035755.php/
I can guarantee that I am much further to the left than you are, yet I can't find anything that Obama has accomplished that is fundamental to the future advancement of the United States. I agree with his stand on things like gay marriage (a position he was forced into by his VP) and amnesty for some children of illegals (a strictly political ploy to secure the Hispanic vote) but his "accomplishments" where it matters, i.e., foreign and domestic policy, the economy and health care, are a disaster.

In foreign policy he should be tried as a war criminal. In the economy his support of the neoliberal agenda is accelerating the destruction of the middle class, the only real driver of a vibrant economy. In health care, his abandonment of a medicare-for-all system or even a public option was a sellout to the insurance and pharmaceutical industries, not to mention a slap in the face of his constituency. But mostly, his evisceration of the Bill of Rights and his expansion of the unilateral presidency is beyond condemnation. He has done more to advance the security police state in America than any president in history and that alone makes him the worst (and most dangerous) for me.

I'm suspicious of the motives of anyone seeking the power of the presidency because the ego of those who do is a threat. But this guy is over the top. He's a smarmy, pathological liar who should be in prison, not the White House.

But what do I know? I left the US for good a decade ago when I saw the direction the country was headed under the Bush version of a police state. Obama has taken it a whole lot further down the road to despotism. Of course if anyone had actually compared the man's pre-presidential rhetoric with his actions as a legislator they would have seen this coming, something which I was warning about in forums as early as 2006-2007.

But just to clarify where I stand politically vis-a-vis my evaluation of Obama, the political commentators I respect the most are Noam Chomsky, Chris Hedges, Cornell West and the late Howard Zinn.

[ArlJim78]

I think I found the answer for you. The Peace and Freedom party is offering "socialist solutions".
The party ticket is Roseanne Barr / Cindy Sheehan
http://politicalticker.blogs.cnn.com/2012/08/10/roseanne-barr-dishes-on-why-shes-running-for-president/

(CNN) – Actress and comedian Roseanne
Barr, who's running for president as the nominee for the Peace and Freedom
Party, said Thursday she's making a White House bid in order to push "socialist solutions."

"I was asked to carry the water and carry a message during this election and
to make socialist solutions part of the narrative, because they're being left
out and they work," she said on CNN's "Piers Morgan Tonight."

[Rookies]

I think I found the answer for you. The Peace and Freedom party is offering "socialist solutions".

There are 300+ mill people in the U.S. Is the process so corrupt and deadlocked that these are the best two you can get?

I am a Social Democrat and at least in Canada, we can get a semi Federal choice of Prime Minister among a Con, a whore Liberal (not to be confused with a liberal), a lefty Social Democrat (but no longer a Democratic Socialist) and a traitor who would like to break up the country.

It's at least a choice that people have. In America, the money has talked and it appears that so many people are bought and paid for before their first day in office. More parties may be the answer in that you would add both a true Conservative and a true Leftist.

[Tom]

Harding and Calvin Coolidge?? :lol: :lol: :lol: :lol: :lol: :lol: :lol: :lol: :lol: :lol: :lol: :lol: :lol: :lol: :lol: :lol: :lol: :lol: :lol: :lol: :lol: :lol: :lol:

Good one!!

Hey, they can't all be BILLY CARTERs! :rolleyes::lol:

[johnhannibalsmith]

I can guarantee that I am much further to the left than you are, yet I can't find anything that Obama has accomplished that is fundamental to the future advancement of the United States. I agree with his stand on things like gay marriage (a position he was forced into by his VP) and amnesty for some children of illegals (a strictly political ploy to secure the Hispanic vote) but his "accomplishments" where it matters, i.e., foreign and domestic policy, the economy and health care, are a disaster.

In foreign policy he should be tried as a war criminal. In the economy his support of the neoliberal agenda is accelerating the destruction of the middle class, the only real driver of a vibrant economy. In health care, his abandonment of a medicare-for-all system or even a public option was a sellout to the insurance and pharmaceutical industries, not to mention a slap in the face of his constituency. But mostly, his evisceration of the Bill of Rights and his expansion of the unilateral presidency is beyond condemnation. He has done more to advance the security police state in America than any president in history and that alone makes him the worst (and most dangerous) for me.

I'm suspicious of the motives of anyone seeking the power of the presidency because the ego of those who do is a threat. But this guy is over the top. He's a smarmy, pathological liar who should be in prison, not the White House.

But what do I know? I left the US for good a decade ago when I saw the direction the country was headed under the Bush version of a police state. Obama has taken it a whole lot further down the road to despotism. Of course if anyone had actually compared the man's pre-presidential rhetoric with his actions as a legislator they would have seen this coming, something which I was warning about in forums as early as 2006-2007.
...

When I agree with Socialist Steve, I tend to REALLY agree with him. :ThmbUp:

He's a F-R-A-U-D... yet Mosite and Stanky are so interested in playing for the team that they can't bring themselves to be honest about it.

[Tom]

More parties may be the answer in that you would add both a true Conservative and a true Leftist.

Less parties - no one can serve the party and the people anymore.
The two parties have the process corrupted with the moronic primary system, where over 40% of the citizens never have a voice in who the candidates are.

We need to outlaw the primaries and focus on several rounds of preliminaries, say, the first in January, where up to 100 people can get on the ballot is they can each raise some number of names on a petition. ALL INCUMBENTS would be forced to go through this process.

Then, in March we vote on the top 50.
Then, in May, the top 20, and the Top 10 in July.
Come November, the top 5 are on the ballot.

All registered citizens vote in all preliminaries.

Then, with the electoral college abolished, we vote in an election where every vote counts equally. Photo ID required! ;)

[NJ Stinks]

There you go again with your non-sense......
On one hand you libs cry that people make terrible wages and live like paupers. remember, that's the whole reason for your "fair share" mantra.
So, and listen closely as I wouldn't want you to miss it stinky...if people are so poor and can barely make ends meet...what difference would the stock market make to them??? I mean I am sure they can not afford to invest right??? :bang:

I don't have the stats to back it up but I would guess a good percentage of American workers have a 401(k). Obviously, these people care a lot about the stock market.

[wisconsin]

I don't have the stats to back it up but I would guess a good percentage of American workers have a 401(k). Obviously, these people care a lot about the stock market.


The average American does not know shit about what to do with their 401(k). Most people I know throw a dart and hope for the best. They are not actively investing, per se. A fund manager is doing it for them.

Other than this type of investment, the poor really are not playing the stocks in any other fashion.

[NJ Stinks]

When I agree with Socialist Steve, I tend to REALLY agree with him. :ThmbUp:

He's a F-R-A-U-D... yet Mosite and Stanky are so interested in playing for the team that they can't bring themselves to be honest about it.

There is no other team, John. Republicans are wrong on too many issues to even consider them a viable alternative.

Can't be any more honest than that.

[NJ Stinks]

The average American does not know shit about what to do with their 401(k). Most people I know throw a dart and hope for the best. They are not actively investing, per se. A fund manager is doing it for them.

Other than this type of investment, the poor really are not playing the stocks in any other fashion.

One thing the average American knows is their 401(k) balance.

[wisconsin]

One thing the average American knows is their 401(k) balance.


But they don't know how it got there. Or care, as long as it is there.

[elysiantraveller]

I don't have the stats to back it up but I would guess a good percentage of American workers have a 401(k). Obviously, these people care a lot about the stock market.

Because the stats don't back that up. But that's what happens when government programs lower our incentive for saving.

[badcompany]

I don't have the stats to back it up but I would guess a good percentage of American workers have a 401(k). Obviously, these people care a lot about the stock market.

They probably have bank accounts, too. What type of interest are they getting?

[wisconsin]

There is no other team, John. Republicans are wrong on too many issues to even consider them a viable alternative.

Can't be any more honest than that.

Are you suggesting that you would vote for a viable alternative? That would mean you don't agree with Obama. Just want to be clear.

[johnhannibalsmith]

There is no other team, John. Republicans are wrong on too many issues to even consider them a viable alternative.

Can't be any more honest than that.

You can't be any more honest than that???

How about not being on either team and rooting for what's right on an issue by issue basis instead of just being a lap dog that will defend anything and everything for one versus the other and then making objective decisions? I was never an Obama supporter per se, but I prefered the gist of his campaign more than that of his rival last time - of course, now we see what he really is and I predictably regret that. That is less geared to you than to your cohort, but since you responded...

[Valuist]

I don't have the stats to back it up but I would guess a good percentage of American workers have a 401(k). Obviously, these people care a lot about the stock market.

The market is only up due to all the money printing by the Federal Reserve. If there really truly was confidence that the market was a reflection of the overall economy, you would see gold prices nowhere near as high as they are. Investors know the market is a house of cards.

[NJ Stinks]

Because the stats don't back that up. But that's what happens when government programs lower our incentive for saving.

So you have stats that show most American workers don't have a 401(k). What's your source?

[badcompany]

The market is only up due to all the money printing by the Federal Reserve. If there really truly was confidence that the market was a reflection of the overall economy, you would see gold prices nowhere near as high as they are. Investors know the market is a house of cards.

Ding ding ding

That the Central Planners at the Fed are too scared to raise interest rates even a little bit tells you all you need to know about the economy.

[NJ Stinks]

Are you suggesting that you would vote for a viable alternative? That would mean you don't agree with Obama. Just want to be clear.

Steve made some very good points in his post. For instance, I agree Obama pissed me off when he easily backed off single payor. If somebody else ran and said he would fight for single payor, I would vote for him instead of Obama. (of course, this is just one issue to consider.)

Obama looks great in the league he plays in. Period.

[Tom]

The last democrat who made a right decision was Johnson, when he decided not to run again.

[elysiantraveller]

So you have stats that show most American workers don't have a 401(k). What's your source?

Its a simple google search. I'm at work or I would put up some links. Only around 25% of working adults use a 401k.

[NJ Stinks]

You can't be any more honest than that???

How about not being on either team and rooting for what's right on an issue by issue basis instead of just being a lap dog that will defend anything and everything for one versus the other and then making objective decisions? I was never an Obama supporter per se, but I prefered the gist of his campaign more than that of his rival last time - of course, now we see what he really is and I predictably regret that. That is less geared to you than to your cohort, but since you responded...

Just sitting here I can't think of one issue where I think Republicans are right and Dems wrong. In fact, generally speaking when Repubs open their mouths, I'm usually thinking one of us must be an alien.

Dems and Repubs can both be wrong but Dems wrong and Repubs right? I can't remember the last time it happened. (Maybe Tom remembers. :rolleyes: )

[Steve R]

So you have stats that show most American workers don't have a 401(k). What's your source?
From http://assets.aarp.org/rgcenter/econ/401k-fees-awareness-11.pdf:
In 2009 there were 49 million participants in 401(k) plans

From ftp://ftp.bls.gov/pub/special.requests/lf/aa2009/aat1.txt:
In 2009 there were about 140 million employed

[NJ Stinks]

From http://assets.aarp.org/rgcenter/econ/401k-fees-awareness-11.pdf:
In 2009 there were 49 million participants in 401(k) plans

From ftp://ftp.bls.gov/pub/special.requests/lf/aa2009/aat1.txt:
In 2009 there were about 140 million employed

Thanks, Steve.

[ArlJim78]

There are 300+ mill people in the U.S. Is the process so corrupt and deadlocked that these are the best two you can get?

.
yes

[Steve R]

There are 300+ mill people in the U.S. Is the process so corrupt and deadlocked that these are the best two you can get?

I am a Social Democrat and at least in Canada, we can get a semi Federal choice of Prime Minister among a Con, a whore Liberal (not to be confused with a liberal), a lefty Social Democrat (but no longer a Democratic Socialist) and a traitor who would like to break up the country.

It's at least a choice that people have. In America, the money has talked and it appears that so many people are bought and paid for before their first day in office. More parties may be the answer in that you would add both a true Conservative and a true Leftist.
The system is corrupt to its very core. Any Democrat or Republican running for the presidency as their official party nominee has been pre-approved by the oligarchs in charge. Without that approval no candidate would have access to the media exposure required to reach the public broadly enough. Ron Paul is a good example. Whether or not you agree with his policies, he was one of the few aspirants for this election whose message actually resonated with a lot of people. Many of his policies were anti-establishment so he was cut off at the knees by a controlled media. I'm pretty sure that to the ruling elite it didn't matter whether Obama or McCain won in 2008. Social issues which tend to rouse the masses don't have the same relevance as business and finance issues to the people running the system. Either Obama or McCain would have protected the interests of those who control the purse strings in the U.S. And of course Obama has...and will again if re-elected, just like Romney will.

Many potentially "good" candidates out there who have a vision more in tune with the majority have either decided not to run because they view it as a futile effort or, if they give it a shot, they know they will be silenced by the kingmaker-controlled MSM.

It's a bad system all around. I much prefer the parliamentary approach where the cult of personality is less pervasive and the country's leader has no God-like qualities. Unfortunately, the U.S. has devolved into an elected monarchy where the president has assumed powers far beyond the intentions of the Founding Fathers and comparable to those of many third-world dictators.

[Tom]

Four years ago, the third party debates were far superior to the real candidates, in term of presentation, content, imagination, and overall not being a total idiot like McSame and Odrama.

No one heard those, or they would have puked on their ballots.

The game is rigged - good people cannot get to the top. No one gets there that is not bought and paid for by special interests. It comes down which evil you want to serve.

[TJDave]

The system is corrupt to its very core. Any Democrat or Republican running for the presidency as their official party nominee has been pre-approved by the oligarchs in charge.

The system is corrupt because of voter apathy. Whenever I hear the charge of top-down control of the political process I ask the same question:

"When was the last time you attended a precinct meeting?"

[thaskalos]

The system is corrupt because of voter apathy. Whenever I hear the charge of top-down control of the political process I ask the same question:

"When was the last time you attended a precinct meeting?"

How can there be no voter apathy, when virtually every presidential election we see features two incompetents...and the voters are asked to choose the best of two evils?

This is what is meant by "Power to the People"?

[TJDave]

How can there be no voter apathy, when virtually every presidential election we see features two incompetents...and the voters are asked to choose the best of two evils?

This is what is meant by "Power to the People"?

Voters have the power to nominate whomever they wish, but it takes more effort than simply registering to vote. The oligarchy assumes the mantle when voters abdicate their responsibility. They count on it.

[Tom]

Dems and Repubs can both be wrong but Dems wrong and Repubs right? I can't remember the last time it happened. (Maybe Tom remembers. :rolleyes: )
2012
2011
2010
2009
2008
2007
2006
2005
2004
2003
2002
2001
1999
1998
1997
1196
1995
1994
1993
1992
1991
1990......
1889
1888
1887
1886
1885



See a pattern here?

[thaskalos]

Voters have the power to nominate whomever they wish, but it takes more effort than simply registering to vote. The oligarchy assumes the mantle when voters abdicate their responsibility. They count on it.

YES they count on it...and it is THEY who have made it more difficult "than simply registering to vote."

"They" figure that -- given the difficulty and the complexity of our lives -- few of us will have the time, or the inclination, to do what you suggest.

And, of course...they are right.

[TJDave]

YES they count on it...and it is THEY who have made it more difficult "than simply registering to vote."

"They" figure that -- given the difficulty and the complexity of our lives -- few of us will have the time, or the inclination, to do what you suggest.

And, of course...they are right.

Life's tough...and then you die.

It's difficult, but not that difficult. Democrats did it in 1972 and the Republicans in 1980.

[Tom]

By the time most people get to vote on anything, the candidates have been selected by a chosen few states. The system prevents most people from having a say until the November elections.

The fix is in.

[Tom]

It's difficult, but not that difficult. Democrats did it in 1972 and the Republicans in 1980.

It took extraordinarily bad presidents in both cases - Nixon and Carter.
the norm is your vote is worthless.

[TJDave]

By the time most people get to vote on anything, the candidates have been selected by a chosen few states. The system prevents most people from having a say until the November elections.

The fix is in.

Those few states are chosen by a process. In fact, everything determined by a political party begins, at some point, with a vote. Majority rules apply.

[fast4522]

How can there be no voter apathy, when virtually every presidential election we see features two incompetents...and the voters are asked to choose the best of two evils?

This is what is meant by "Power to the People"?

Take no thought that I decided to quote your post, I just liked it about the best "of two evils" bit.

Sometimes we forget as men we are never perfect, everyone wants way too much period. It is completely impossible to please everyone, so my view on the Presidency is more like a spare tire. With that I expect to be surprised some times when a President actually does rise to the occasion and do what is best for the country in economic, military, and security areas. As far as socialist leanings I want a President to have a attitude of don't let the door hit you in the ass on the way out if you are a socialist. The last sentence is where I want too much, I admit my views are hard core but by any estimate that is creditable we can not afford this bullshit.

[mostpost]

Amazingly, I guess we need to define "accomplishments" as good or bad...right stinky???

"1. Passed Health Care Reform: After five presidents over a century failed to create universal health insurance, signed the Affordable Care Act (2010). It will cover 32 million uninsured Americans beginning in 2014 and mandates a suite of experimental measures to cut health care cost growth, the number one cause of America’s long-term fiscal problems."

Really??? Would you like to talk about "cost"??? Or, should we talk about how many will be "dropped" from coverage? Or, is it a tax, or a penalty?? lol
The Affordable Care Act reduces the deficit over the next decade. When you talk about cost you can't just consider increases in taxes without also considering other costs that may be reduced. Like the cost of paying for emergency room treatment of people who are now uninsured. As to the penalty or tax argument; you don't have to pay either. Just get the freakin' insurance.

The ACA does not drop anybody from coverage. It provides coverage for 30,000,000 who are not now covered. Nothing in the act says that someone must be dropped from coverage. What you are referring to is allegations by some companies that they will stop providing coverage.

To begin with none of those companies has as yet dropped coverage. Saying something in a survey and doing it are two different animals. There is no consequence to answering a survey. Also who is to say that those companies would not have dropped coverage anyway if the ACA had not passed. At least now they get fined.

Finally a person who is dropped will now be able to get coverage through the exchanges. An option they did not have previously

2. Passed the Stimulus: Signed $787 billion American Recovery and Reinvestment Act in 2009 to spur economic growth amid greatest recession since the Great Depression. Weeks after stimulus went into effect, unemployment claims began to subside. Twelve months later, the private sector began producing more jobs than it was losing, and it has continued to do so for twenty-three straight months, creating a total of nearly 3.7 million new private-sector jobs.

Who was it that said if this was passed that unemployement would not go ABOVE 8%?? Can you please point to the month where it waqs UNDER 8%?? Not too mention the Solyndra's of the world who got all sorts of money...how did they fare??
I don't recall who said it, but it was an unwise thing to say. The person apparently did not realize just how badly Bush and the Republicans had screwed up the economy. If we had not had the stimulus, the unemployment now would be 12%.
I would also point out that since the official end of the recession in June of 2009, the Obama administration has added 2,729,000 jobs to the economy. This in spite of the fact that Republican Governors and state legislatures have gutted public employment,.

"4. Ended the War in Iraq: Ordered all U.S. military forces out of the country. Last troops left on December 18, 2011."
He only mopped up what was left...and might I add, QUICKLY ESCALTED in Afghanistan...do we need to discuss Gunatanamo???
Afghanistan is where we should have been all along. Afghanistan is where the 9/11 attacks originated. Don't forget we had bin Laden trapped at Bora Bora and the commanders on the scene were ordered not to pursue him. Troops were withdrawn from Bora Bora and from Afghanistan to attack a country that had no involvement in 9/11/


"
6. Eliminated Osama bin laden: In 2011, ordered special forces raid of secret compound in Abbottabad, Pakistan, in which the terrorist leader was killed and a trove of al-Qaeda documents was discovered.
There are many stories about his wavering and making this call....plus, he is the damn president of the U.S. he should of made the call! And, how was Bin Laden found again???
There are also stories about puppets who turn into little boys and hang out with crickets and young women who hang out with really short people. Those stories have more credibility.

7. Turned Around U.S. Auto Industry: In 2009, injected $62 billion in federal money (on top of $13.4 billion in loans from the Bush administration) into ailing GM and Chrysler in return for equity stakes and agreements for massive restructuring. Since bottoming out in 2009, the auto industry has added more than 100,000 jobs. In 2011, the Big Three automakers all gained market share for the first time in two decades. The government expects to lose $16 billion of its investment, less if the price of the GM stock it still owns increases.
So, we ONLY expect to lose 16 billion....I feel good now!! lol
By the way, have you seem Obummers recent statements of wanting to do the same for ALL INDUSTRIES?? Guess he is bringing to big to fail to a whole other level....my only question is who is gonna pay for it? Maybe we can get China to help with that pay problem?? lol
The auto industry has added 100,000 jobs. A few years ago guys like you were calling to let it go bankrupt. How many jobs would that have cost? 200,000? Half a million? How many jobs in support industries would have been lost?



11. Told Mubarak to Go: On February 1, 2011, publicly called on Egyptian President Hosni Mubarak to accept reform or step down, thus weakening the dictator’s position and putting America on the right side of the Arab Spring. Mubarak ended thirty-year rule when overthrown on February 11.

Obama speaks and world leaders cower...lol This is good! By the way, how is that Egyptian new government with the "brotherhood" working out???
This shows the difference between Democrats and Republicans. Republicans threaten like Bush threatened and tried to bully European leaders who would not support him on Iraq. Democrats point out circumstances and consequences and urge the leaders of other countries to act sensibly.

As for the Muslim brotherhood, the Mubarek government was going down regardless of what we did. Is it not better to have a good relationship with the new government?

12. Reversed Bush Torture Policies: Two days after taking office, nullified Bush-era rulings that had allowed detainees in U.S. custody to undergo certain “enhanced” interrogation techniques considered inhumane under the Geneva Conventions. Also released the secret Bush legal rulings supporting the use of these techniques.
And has ramped up the killing of many civilians with the use of drones.....yeah, A real humanitarian you got there NJ lol.
It's good that you don't dispute that Bush use illegal torture tactics.
The drones are used in military actions against military targets. Drones do not target civilians anymore than artillery or manned planes do. It is an unfortunate by product of modern warfare that combatants and non combatants are often intermingled. Your allegation that Obama deliberately targets civilians is repugnant.

13. Improved America’s Image Abroad: With new policies, diplomacy, and rhetoric, reversed a sharp decline in world opinion toward the U.S. (and the corresponding loss of “soft power”) during the Bush years. From 2008 to 2011, favorable opinion toward the United States rose in ten of fifteen countries surveyed by the Pew Global Attitudes Project, with an average increase of 26 percent.
This one is a joke right?? Yep, the world looks at us in a whole new light....lmao
Continued Positive Views of U.S. in
Obama Era
% Favorable
toward U.S.
Bush
era
Obama
era
Pct point
change
2008 2009 2012 08-12 09-12
% % %
Italy 53* -- 74 +21 --
France 42 75 69 +27 -6
Poland 68 67 69 +1 +2
Britain 53 69 60 +7 -9
Spain 33 58 58 +25 0
Czech Rep. 45* -- 54 +9 --
Germany 31 64 52 +21 -12
Greece -- -- 35 -- --
Russia 46 44 52 +6 +8
Lebanon 51 55 48 -3 -7
Tunisia -- -- 45 -- --
Egypt 22 27 19 -3 -8
Turkey 12 14 15 +3 +1
Jordan 19 25 12 -7 -13
Pakistan 19 16 12 -7 -4
Japan 50 59 72 +22 +13
China 41 47 43 +2 -4
India -- -- 41 -- --
Brazil -- -- 61 -- --
Mexico 47 69 56 +9 -13
The above chart is a pew research center poll on attitudes toward America in several foreign countries. It is kind of hard to follow since PA insists on left justifying everything, so I italicized the Bush Numbers and underlined Obama's.
The numbers tell us two things. For all of our Major allies in Europe plus Japan, Obama is much more popular than Bush. In the middle east-in the Muslim countries-Obama is slightly less popular than Bush was. Odd since Obama is a Muslim. :rolleyes:

16. Boosted Fuel Efficiency Standards: Released new fuel efficiency standards in 2011 that will nearly double the fuel economy for cars and trucks by 2025.
Great thing where gas prices are now....If I can just make it till 2025...hmmmm
Right!! It's all about you. What happens after you die is of no concern to you. If the new standards can double fuel economy by 2025 I think that's great. (And I am much more likely to be dead by then than you-though I hope not)


17. Coordinated International Response to Financial Crisis: To keep world economy out of recession in 2009 and 2010, helped secure from G-20 nations more than $500 billion for the IMF to provide lines of credit and other support to emerging market countries, which kept them liquid and avoided crises with their currencies.
Greece, Spain, Portugal....lmao You can not make this stuff up!!
Imagine how much worse things would have been if those actions had not been taken. Sorry. I forgot. Conservatives can't imagine. :rolleyes:

We could go on and on...but what you see as accomplishments, I am seeing as complete failures and ADDING huge deficits to my grandchildren all the while...Guess I should be saying thinks somewhere lol.


NJ Stinks presented 50 things Barach Obama accomplished. You took issue with ten of them. I must conclude that you approve of the other forty. Even you approve of 80% of the things Obama has done. :jump: :jump:

[Valuist]

From http://assets.aarp.org/rgcenter/econ/401k-fees-awareness-11.pdf:
In 2009 there were 49 million participants in 401(k) plans

From ftp://ftp.bls.gov/pub/special.requests/lf/aa2009/aat1.txt:
In 2009 there were about 140 million employed

But there could be individuals with IRAs and/or brokerage accounts who do not have a 401 (k).

[Steve R]

But there could be individuals with IRAs and/or brokerage accounts who do not have a 401 (k).
From http://www.treasury.gov/tigta/auditreports/2010reports/201010097fr.pdf:
In 2007 15.2 million Americans of working age participated in an IRA. I assume some of those had 401(k)s and/or brokerage accounts as well.

From http://www.ici.org/pdf/rpt_02_equity_owners.pdf:
In 2002 21 million owned individual stocks outside an employee sponsored plan. Some of those probably had 401(k)s and or IRAs.

[Tom]

Those few states are chosen by a process. In fact, everything determined by a political party begins, at some point, with a vote. Majority rules apply.

Bullsh^t.
The process begins and ends with the parties, not the populace.
Only party members have a say.

[TJDave]

Bullsh^t.
The process begins and ends with the parties, not the populace.
Only party members have a say.

True, only party members have a say.
But anyone can be a member.
Aren't you?
If not, what are you bitching about?

[Tom]

I am a citizen, That is all the constitution is about.
Being a party member is a limitation on my voting rights.
And if you think things are decided by fair votes in any party, you are nuts.

[PaceAdvantage]

Are you better off today than you were trillions of dollars ago?What an awesome little tidbit to throw out in a debate. Team Romney should pay you for the rights to this one...

[Rookies]

Not 24 hours from christening Ryan as Prez :D , Romney is already "clarifying":lol: his position on his newly acquired albatross:

"As the Romney/Ryan duo test-drove the ticket through three increasingly enthusiastic Republican rallies in Virginia on Saturday, senior Romney aides signalled that the candidate would put forward his own plan rather than endorse wholesale the government-shrinking blueprint for which Ryan is best known.
The strategy of embracing Ryan, but not necessarily his controversial budget proposals, hints at the delicate political tightrope Romney walks as he seeks to reinvigorate his stalled campaign to defeat President Barack Obama in November."

http://www.thestar.com/news/world/article/1240672--romney-picks-paul-ryan-as-vice-presidential-running-mate-ap-source

He'll be doing a lot of that from now until the finish line!

[Tom]

Well golly gee, imagine that - the TOP of the ticket will take priority over the bottom. Is that how you do things in Canada? Anything you propose once is set in stone forever? Lame pot shot. :rolleyes: Obama use every stupid idea Biden had before he was named Assistant Idiot of the United States?

[TJDave]

I am a citizen, That is all the constitution is about.

The constitution confers rights and responsibilities. Abdicate either and lose both.

Being a party member is a limitation on my voting rights.

Not unless you consider 'gaming the system' a voting right. By opting out you guarantee that others make decisions for you. In essence, not being a party member is a limitation of your voting rights.

And if you think things are decided by fair votes in any party, you are nuts.

The votes are fair...but only for those voting. For the millions of registered and unregistered opting out, not so much.

[Tom]

The constitution confers rights and responsibilities. Abdicate either and lose both.

List the constitutional responsibilities for voting:

[TJDave]

List the constitutional responsibilities for voting:

US citizens have but one constitutional responsibility:

To obey the law/s.

Failure to do so may result in the loss of some or all constitutionally guaranteed rights.

Do I need to point out that elected representatives make law?

[Tom]

US citizens have but one constitutional responsibility:

To obey the law/s.

Where specifically does it say that in the constitution?

Hint: It doesn't.

Your argument makes as much sense as saying you have the option of paying protection money to the mob to stop them from burning down your store, therefore, you have a choice.

Weak.

[iceknight]

US citizens have but one constitutional responsibility:

To obey the law/s.

Failure to do so may result in the loss of some or all constitutionally guaranteed rights.

Do I need to point out that elected representatives make law? But you know very well that a law (as well as an Executive order) can be challenged in the Court... as there are three brances of the government. So, yes, the law needs to be obeyed and only as long as it is not in conflict with Constitutionally protected rights (aka the Amendments which make sure that any branch of governement do not trample on individual rights).. So, not choosing to vote could fall under Freedom of Expression. How do you handle that Senor?