Discussion on:

Should Barack Obama be reelected?

No matter who you vote for, your stuck with crap.

nt

Who has the bigger pile? Who smells the least?

nt

as a bad plan. You gotta let 'em eff it up first, if you're going to determine who makes the biggest mess.

playground, so just examine the evidence that's available and go from there.

strongly suggests the removal of both sides from the playground.

sure sounds like time to arrange for another big one in Boston.

The political powers that be crashed it.

So now we're going to try a Third Party...

I can see it happening....

be a great improvement, regardless of how well it goes.

..... that's REALLY available not only "strongly suggests", but absolutely dictates that "the removal of both sides from the playground" is a mere pipe-dream. It's like pissing up a rope thinking you're not going to wet yourself.

..... evidence that people simply do not understand their own system of government and the political process that elects their own representatives. And if they claim to understand it, then they're in denial of the reality of it.

Not both, at least. But the radicals in the Republican party seem determined to marginalize that party by rooting out all voices of dissention (i.e. "Rinos"). If they succeed, the Republican party of today will lose all relevance and become just one more fringe party for the remaining few years of its existence.

What will rise from the ashes I don't know, but it will take at least a presidential term to do so.

As for denying reality, maybe that is the case. But haven't you yourself complained about the "these are your only choices, deal with it" attitude from the major parties?

The two party system is entirely and wholly based on the first-past-the-post election system. That's all.
Go to proportional, and you'll be rid of it right away. After that, once the binary fallacy evaporates, people can finally stop voting for the lesser evil.
And since there are ways to start that reform from a popular level, by voter demand, there's no excuse for just going from election to election using a fundamentally flawed system.
Nothing will get better that way.

You go on an on about how we could change our electoral college system, etc.; others go on and on in reply; all you have to do is this or that; all you have to do is blah, blah, blah.

I can understand why you don't have a clue, Ansu (although the reason why you'd engage yourself in such idiotic conversation to begin with continues to be elusive), but the others?

Regardless of anyone's hopes, dreams, and desires regarding the US Electoral system, to change it would require no less than a constitutional amendment. Any other discussion about it is no more than an exercise in meaningless self indulgence.

Constitutional Amendment process, just organise another successful revolution.

just to get rid of Obama.

Whatever happened to "principle", Max?

No, I didn't repeat myself (notice upper case versus lower case).

I'm a libertarian. Boxfiddler, I presume, as well as others, are Libertarians.

While a libertarian is a subset of being a Libertarian, being a Libertarian is not necessarily a subset of being a libertarian. I'm always consistent in my principles as a libertarian, and always cognizant of the reality that being a staunch Libertarian is, more or less, an effort in futility. The Libertarian will always be on the outside looking in (or trying to force themselves in); while the libertarian can easily get inside by playing the reality game. (Reality = We have a two-party system; we can debate the merits of it till the cows come home, but in the meantime, face reality!)

Principle + Reality = libertarian

Principle + Wishful Thinking = Libertarian

And libertarians actually have a chance to win elected office, while Libertarian's chances of winning are reduced the bigger the office happens to be. A Libertarian has ZERO chance of winning the presidency, for example, but a slight chance to win a seat in the US House of Representatives. A libertarian candidate, on the other hand, has a reasonable chance to win both.

And then there's the "majority party" reality. While a libertarian will choose one or the other, the Libertarian chooses neither.

A libertarian is a player in the arena. A Libertarian is a spectator complaining about the rules.

Don't like the rules? Want to change the rules?

A libertarian has a chance of changing the rules, while a Libertarian has no chance.

Oh, and a bit of irony. Those being associated with the "Tea Party" movement, are actually the libertarian-minded people who want to change the Republican Party from within, taking it back to its more libertarian roots. But the Libertarians out there criticize and ridicule them for being "too extreme". Go figure!

Why are they so set on shoving their social views down the throats of everybody else? Seems to me that's not a very libertarian thing to do...

Isn't one of the principles of libertarianism "as few laws as necessary" to support a functioning society? To claim that government is "too intrusive" when it comes to setting taxes and requirements for business, then turn around and claim government needs to intrude into personal decisions very strongly resembles my understanding of hypocrisy.

First of all, Nick, you paint with a broad brush. Second of all, what you see as "Tea Party" and what I see as "Tea Party" might look entirely different. You might have an MSNBC view, for all I know, so it's pointless discussing what it is or isn't. Moreover, the name "Tea Party" has been hijacked, used, abused, over-used, misused, and anything else to the point of almost making it meaningless.

You do illustrate, however, a contradiction I also see in many libertarians - social issue libertarians or fiscal issue libertarians? I can only speak for myself, but I tend to be both; and since I care less about the social issues and more about the fiscal issues, there ya' go, I fall into the conservative / Republican coalition because that's where my driving issue (fiscal libertarianism) can be best advanced.

Regarding social issues, Roe v Wade isn't about to be overturned any time soon, regardless of any electoral outcome; I don't really give a rip about gay marriage, and I'm just put-off by most people on both sides of that issue, so they both make it easy for me to not give a rip; and my state is about to pass a marijuana legalization measure (at least I predict passage), so there's certainly a growing climate of libertarianism out there.

The difference between libertarians and Libertarians is in their respective thinking on how to best advance it. And conservatives (not to be confused with Conservatives) are much better bed partners in my equally important driving issue - keeping the creeping, destructive hand of socialism from advancing any farther than it already has (or is it, any further?).

exactly like being a tool, which is the same as a "useful idiot".
You think you will get your say. As if your voice weighs more than the corporate donors'. They don't need you, and you'll get nothing.

I resent them trying to impose their social mores on society too. I get the libertarian agenda when it comes to fiscal matters, but Nick has a point that their message is lost when they start trying to impose their influence on social issues. It is hypocritical and that is why I have never totally embraced the Tea Party. I would describe the Tea Party as fiscally responsible but also imposing a moral guideline for people to live by, maybe hopefully enforced by law one day. No, Roe v. Wade won't be overturned anytime soon, but its because people from the Tea Party aren't powerful enough to do it. If they ever are, you can bet that will be on top of the agenda.

Thats the problem with them and why they will never gain mainstream acceptance. Why does fiscal discipline have to be married to social adoption of a set of values that not everyone embraces? One has nothing to do with the other.

AV

You (AV) failed to recognize that I acknowledged Nick's observation about some libertarians and social issues. Gee, I already said that. Why "point out" something to me that I already "pointed out" to myself?

You both act like you believe the "Tea Party" is (are) an organized political party that speaks with one monolithic voice. That all people Tea Party speak in concert. What a silly thing to assert; and what a silly thing to believe. And if you don't believe it, why did you assert it?

It shows that neither of you truly understands the tea party movement, since all you (apparently) do is repeat the MSNBC narrative about it (them), which is really no more than a dismissive tactic.

Interesting. This is like deja vu all over again. Seems like I've already had this conversation. (Beating head against the wall)

P.S. You probably also both dismiss other people as "birthers" just because they ask questions about the holes and inconsistencies as told about BHO's life.

You're right. You did point that out. I was just adding that I think their views on social mores is the reason why more people don't embrace their agenda.

I am guilty of looking at the Tea Party as speaking in one voice and thinking that they are an organized political party. I know they aren't really, but many of the candidates that they embrace support a religious right ideology that I don't think should be part of politics.

I know we've had this conversation several times, but the other point I was trying to make is that if the Tea Party backed candidates left their religion out of it, their message of fiscal discipline would be more widely accepted.

I don't dismiss the birthers at all after looking at a lot of the issues they've presented. Initially the idea that Obama isn't who he says he is seemed unbelievable to me, but now I think the birthers really have some credible points that should be investigated further. Its even more disturbing to me that the mainstream media just dismisses everything they say as bunk, when it is their job to be unbiased and investigate the claims that they are making. That will likely never happen because the mainstream media has always had a love affair with Obama.

AV

is the Tea Party they see on the network news: NBC, ABC, CBS, CNN, Fox, and yes, even MSNBC. What do they see on those broadcasts? The "big names" in the Tea Party – Palin, Bachmann, Perry, and the rest – all spewing about "intrusive government", "overtaxed", "job creators", etc., etc., etc.

For most of the American public, those clowns ARE the T/tea P/party movement.

I thought I was talking to you.

My perception of the tea party movement is that it started as a grass-roots movement; I had no problem with the early tea party, and agree with several points on the Contract from America. But that grass-roots movement was quickly and efficiently co-opted by the moneyed interests on the right. In short, the tea party became the Tea Party, with such representative groups as the Tea Party Patriots, True the Vote, and other organizations determined to impose their views on Americans. Once the tea party became the Tea Party, it became a tool to achieve an agenda antithetical to its original purpose, and the membership became tools as well.

But it's not my perception of the tea party that will have an effect on how people vote, it's everybody else's perception of the Tea Party.

His recent foreign policy blunders:

Ignoring Israel and disrespecting that nation's Prime Minister.

He lied about what the "Arab Spring" really was - and he helped them by using American troops without Congressional approval. (I never bought into that "Arab Spring" crap.)

A complete meltdown in Libya, which led to the deaths of several Americans, including our Ambassador - and he then lied about it to cover up said blunders.

His lied about what really happened (blaming some obscure video that no one had ever heard about), and he was actually the cause of even MORE unrest throughout the region because of it.

The same kind of blunders in Egypt; and now he wants to give a half billion dollars to the Muslim Brotherhood who took over that nation (with BHO's help, of course).

His "scheduled time table" to remove American troops from Afghanistan (irrespective of any suggestion that they should be removed). We now are seeing a consequence of that announcement. Afghan soldiers who were trained by the Americans, and who worked along side of the American soldiers, are now facing a future where they will be accountable to those previous adversaries all by themselves. How many of those Afghan soldiers will want to get back into the good graces of the Taliban and/or Al-Qaeda? What better way to show it than to kill American soldiers?

And the American soldiers killed on Barack Hussein Obama's watch FAR EXCEED that of his predecessor.

http: // icasualties.org / oef /

His predecessor also seemed to care more about the soldiers, by the way. His predecessor respected the soldiers enough to at least give up playing golf, while BHO is constantly chasing that little white ball around the links.

Bragging about killing Osama bin Laden, and actually using it as a campaign slogan (Osama is dead, but GM is alive). Which resulted in protests in Libya, as well as across that region, with people chanting, "We're ALL Osama, Obama!"

He leaked national security secrets for the same reason, announcing to the world what else was found in the bin Laden compound.

Dramatically reducing the size of the United States Navy, while the Chinese are dramatically increasing the size of theirs.

Not to mention, bowing down before a Saudi King; or giving the Queen of England an official state gift that consisted of an iPod with his speeches, or........

Barack Hussein Obama is a foreign policy disaster for the United States.

With a bit of cut and paste, the talking points of FNC become your intelligent and non-partisan viewpoint

The whole issue in Libya is like the rain. If it rains, it's Obama's fault. Take half the facts, put a spin on them, regurgitate and repeat.

His campaign slogan CAUSED the protests in Libya? really

Bush left office handing off TWO wars to Obama, and the mess in Afghanistan was just getting started, so blaming Obama for more American deaths is simply reprehensible.

The whole golf thing...seriously?

For Bush, 967 days, or 32% of his total time in office, was spent on vacations or retreats. Obama's time spent golfing, a couple of hours each time, adds up to approximately .010% of the time he has been in office...woooo.

Bush and Fox News? That's it?

Bush is long gone; and if anything, Fox News gets its talking points from me!

The Obama Administration knew beforehand that the Ambassador thought he was on the Al-Qaida hit list from his personal journals and they didn't provide him with more security or get him out of there. Why not?

Oh, that's right, there isn't one. And not because it was taken offline, there never was one listed. The US has its diplomatic sites concentrated in the capital, Tripoli, as would be expected.
So, did the Ambassador request protection for this stay in Benghazi? Or did he relocate to Benghazi because of the threat or because Benghazi is known to be a US-friendly area?
That's all still under wraps. So far, your accusation is premature.

There is a consulate office in Benghazi and the main embassy near Tripoli. http://maps.google.com/maps?hl=en&sugexp=les;cesh&cp=19&gs_id=1k&xhr=t&bav=on.2,or.r_gc.r_pw.r_qf.&biw=1280&bih=803&wrapid=tljp1349814173616036&um=1&ie=UTF-8&q=us+embassy+in+benghazi+libya&fb=1&gl=us&hq=us+embassy&hnear=0x13831c55479eee2b:0xe497dfce76d293e0,Benghazi,+Libya&cid=0,0,6328179113962402310&sa=X&ei=pId0UOitOayM0QGQpIDQCg&sqi=2&ved=0CIcBEPwSMAY

http://abcnews.go.com/blogs/politics/2012/10/email-shows-state-department-rejecting-request-of-security-team-at-us-embassy-in-libya/

Maybe its all under wraps in your country, but not here.

AV

I will remember to propagate this info.

solicited my opinion, I shall not surprise you with having one.

A lesson from the UK.
We had five terms of tories, followed by three of labour. Leaving them in office, was not a good decision.

My recomendation, vote against the current incumbent, no matter what. Incompetence should always be rewarded...

I came across this list, and it seems reasonably legit, to my knowledge, but I'd like to hear a second opinion on it.
http://www.clearsay.net/obama_accomplishments_chart.asp

... it looks reasonably legit to me, too. Just a second opinion.

I think we can agree on Obama.
Not sure we can agree on Romney being an obvious better choice, but hey, half agreed is better than nothing, right?

..... by default, we also agree on "Romney being an obvious better choice" - since he's the only possible choice that could remove Obama; no other choice could result in that outcome - period.

Assuming, like I said, that we "agree on Obama" - that is, he must be removed.

but not replaced by someone worse... and Romney is making me very worried.

There's more than one other option, no matter your opinion on the subject.

First off, do I think President Obama has been a great President? No.

Would any President from the Democratic party be able to work with the 2010 House of Representatives? I think not.

Personal opinion, I expect that historians will judge Barack Obama's Presidency to be near the middle of the scale. Of course, I still am of the opinion that George W. Bush's tenure as President will be judged in the bottom 10%.

For the record, I did vote for Mitt Romney in the primary. Mostly because he was the least objectionable candidate on the Republican slate.

So, why do I plan to vote to reelect President Obama?

1. Voting for Barack Obama and Democrats running for the Senate is the best way to protect the "Health Care Reform Act".
While I do not think it went far enough, the Health Care Reform Act is a good first step toward improving health care options for the 99%.

2. We are not going to balance the budget and start to pay down the national debt without raising taxes.
Neither party should take any program cut or revenue increase off of the table, It is very sad that a 5% tax increase for those making over $250,000 a year would raise more revenue than a 50% tax on those earning under $50,000 a year.

3. We need to support organized labor if we want to maintain a strong middle class.

4. We need to increase not decrease the protection of the environment.

5. Alternate energy support and research.
Despite popular opinion, we cannot drill ourselves out of either an energy or climate crisis. There is a finite amount of fossil fuel in the Earth. Once we use up the Natural gas and Petroleum there will be none left. The sooner we shift to higher fuel economy, smaller homes, and shorter commutes, the better for all of us.
And, should fracking damage even one aquifer, is a little more Natural Gas really worth that cost?

6. Finally, both most importantly and most selfishly, a first term Republican President has always coincided with a major economic setback for myself and my family. We are just now recovering to where we had been when George W. Bush took office. I don't think I can recover from another economic setback.

Chas

Will the candidates fight something substantial from or against China as a vote booster? For example, to reclaim certain production leadership by reversing industrial globalization.

http://www.nytimes.com/2012/09/21/us/politics/obamas-evolution-to-a-tougher-line-on-china.html?pagewanted=all&_r=0

I don't think that the President of the United States can reverse or stop globalization. I do think he can and should make sure that trading partners trade fairly. Getting China to stop undervaluing their currency, for example, would in and of itself slow the migration of jobs to China, though that isn't to say they wouldn't go somewhere else.