At this point, I'm predicting an easy Obama win

ONLY in loony liberal lalaland could this statement, "So Bush was an incompetent liar too." be interpreted as trying to ignore Bush or deny that he did exist. He did, he stunk.

Now the question you loony liberals cannot stand and will not answer.

How does Bush being bad make odrama good?

(B- = O+) is not an equation. Its pure nonsense.

What Bush was or was not has no bearing whatsoever of the worth or lack thereof of odrama. Bush was bad. odrama is much, much worse.
Odrama lies more, is more out of touch with America, and is completely lost like a small child internationally. He is a world wide JOKE!
In 32 months he has run up more deficit spending than Bush and Republicans did while they had control for more than twice as long. And odrama accomplished NOTHING but more debt. The economy is no better, maybe worse. Business is now saddled with 25,000 pages of new regulations costing over $60 billion just to administer the regulations. Plus the cost to implement and adhere.
odrama appoints a man that has sent more jobs offshore than ANY other individual to be his jobs Czar. odrama would deserve criticism for picking someone that had a fair to poor record of sending jobs overseas, but he picks the worst possible individual. How do you explain that?

odrama appoints a fiscal commission HIMSELF. no one pressured him to put anyone but his own choices on that commission. They report their finding to him in Dec. 2010. He hates their findings and cans their report.

http://www.fiscalcommission.gov/sit...files/documents/TheMomentofTruth12_1_2010.pdf

Their report is a quantum leap better than any of the failed nonsense odrama has tried, but the report does not fit his ideological demagoguery.

Bush is gone, history. Doesn't matter if he was good, [he wasn't]or he was bad [he was]. odrama is odrama no matter what bush was. And odrama is a pitifully bad incompetent idiot.

The Republican candidates? Every one of them has better qualifications now than odrama had when he was elected. He had NONE. Not one second of any kind of executive experience. And it has shown from day one that he did not know what to do or how to do it and he has still learned NOTHING.

 

Um....no one wants Obama for another 4 years. We just don't understand why anyone who acknowledges Bush was bad would think ANY of the GOP field are going to be ANY different. We have no chance for regime change in this country through the process of voting. It is time to consider other options. The election process has been compromised.

 

I'm sorry to say it's not so conspiratorial as all that.
It's math.
Conservatives are a majority of their party.
Liberals are a plurality of theirs.

Even if we assume all within an ideology are the same and that bot ha re equally prone to putting aside these differences, this means that one party will be right-dominated, the other merely liberal-influenced.
Liberals are more reliant on moderates than Republicans are-- they have to get a majority of moderates regardless of base turn-out!

Also our tax system, the way we use tax policy to proxy redistribution, makes redistribution less popular and taxation a constant subject, benefiting conservatives.

Then there's the electoral college, which benefits conservatives.
The Voters Rights Act- Ha! Sounds liberal, doesn't it? At one point it was. But now what it does is exacerbates the already common problem of liberals being packed tight into extremely left-leaning districts. Being mostly urban, the liberal population is largely found in a few districts, meaning a disadvantage in the House (with a slight advantage in the Senate, but not on a per-capita basis).

Modern American ideology is framed around anti-communist paranoia. Our democratic system is, you'll notice, never replicated... because it's not very democratic.

There are lots of reasons the Democrats are more centrist than we'd hope. It's not as much corruption as the reality of politics. The system selects for center-right candidates.
That's why we're called a "center-right" nation, though it's difficult to say if that really describes our people or just the system.

 

Exactly! I don't defend Obama until I hear people saying how he is sooo much worse than every other president ever.

 

I get all of that but it's no secret who the politicians bow down to. My fight is not so much with the system but with people who refuse to see the system for what it is. Thinking "my guy" has your guy beat when in reality we both lose. I don't pretend to know everything, but one thing I do know and that's money is ruining our political system. Yes, it will eventually rule all political systems, but there is a reason why everyone in France get six week vacations and why Wal-Mart in other countries provide health care for their employees. Because the government (the people) require them to. We have so much hatred instilled in us that we fight amongst ourselves while we recycle politicians.

 

Walmart offers employee health care plans in the USA too. And most of those EU nations that take all of August off are broke and going broker every day.

What you liberals have failed to realize is that "the People" of the USA have seen what the future of government intrusion is and have realized we cannot afford to keep doing it. Liberals are blinded by liberal nonsense, but the majority of the US KNOWS we have to radically change our thinking and REQUIRE that EACH person become responsible for themselves. The free rides must stop and it will stop. There is no choice about that here or in the EU. If we the people stop the govt takeover it can happen in an organized way. If we don't, the inevitability of its unsustainability will stop it with chaos and anarchy. Already Europe is enduring riots and KILLINGS over austerity programs that are 100% necessary and are minor compared to how much HAS to be cut.

 

Then why don't you support Paul? He is, and has been, the only non-statist in American politics for 4 decades. LOL

 

Is it the money?
Or is it the lack of diversity in where the money comes from?

My thought is that lobbyists are over-demonized (they deserve some of it, but not all).
If nobody gave money or biased info to campaigns, elite frames would still carry the day. Politicians would just go about it in a more inefficient manner, having to seek info themselves (and mostly finding elite biased info, because that will be the easiest to find, especially if making it easy to find is the way to get it across).

The real problem is that other groups don't have as much influence over government. It's a relativity thing.
They get more information and money from business groups than worker groups, environmental groups, etc. (perversely they get more peddling from the pro-farm subsidy minority than the anti-, because there isn't an organized anti- group).

This is a harder problem to solve, but at least it's the right problem. I guarantee you that if we got money out of politics (and really we'd only outlaw the practice-- it would still be there), we will not see any real results.

 

9.1% unemployment, 16+% underemployment, foreclosures rising, home prices falling, $4 trillion dollars in new debt, food prices skyrocketing and gasoline still hovering near $4 a gallon and you predict an easy Obama win? We'd be better off with Bernie Lomax from a "Weekend at Bernie's" in the White House. A dead guy couldn't do any worse than the brain dead Obama.

 

Because he is an unelectable wacko. I've tried to like him. Can't do it. IF I thought he could beat odrama, I'd be for him. but him running as a 3rd candidate scares the hell out of me. It would all but insure odrama's reelection.
He says some good things but every other sentence is an "Attaboy!" or an "Awww Crap!" to be elected he needs long, long paragraphs of "Attaboys!" with only a rare "Awww Crap!"

Even a broken clock is right twice a day.

 

And that is why statism pushes on. Thank you. You are as programmed to accept big government policy as any leftist. For anything different is, in you own words, "wacko". Your posts are a waste of server space. Not trying to be a jerk, just trying to get you to wake up.

 

Doesn't matter. At this point the people who have the money have no interest in diversifying the group of people with that money.

Garbage in, garbage out. I'm all for changing the source of that information, but that would start by people like those in this forum who would rather choose a partisan side than reveal the truth. So again, even the "intelligent" among us are persuaded by the powers that be and might not even realize it.

Yes, money will always be there, I'm just all for bettering the outcome for those who don't have all the money.

 

You scorn the people that get from corporations the very benefits that ours steal from us. If what you say is true, then why is it that we are just as much in trouble as other EU nations and even worse than some? Conservatives are blinded by this notion that things will work out best for most of us if we just continue to bow to those lucky enough to be born in the right family or fortunate enough to get the breaks needed to be one of the uber rich in this country. Again, I'm not advocating making paupers out of rich people, I'm advocating giving everyone a fair shake at a good quality of life.

 

What other options do you recommend?

 

The top 25% of income earners now pay 86.4% of our total income taxes. The next 24% pay the remaining 13.6% of our total income tax. 49% now pay 100% of our income tax. And 23 million of those who get back all their withholding, also receive EITC of THOUSANDS of dollars. While 49% are pouring it in the top, 23 million of the 51% are draining it out of the bottom.

What is FAIR? That the 49% pay MORE? And the 49%,,,,,,The prior year it was 51% paid all the income tax. And the year before that 53% paid all the income tax. Next year what do you want 47% to pay all the income tax? Then 45%, 43%, until Gates and Buffet pay for everybody because "THEY CAN AFFORD IT?"

The presidents commission, which he promptly ignored, said throw out the entire massive, ridiculous tax code and install a simple tax with no loopholes, AND REDUCE THE TAX RATES FOR EVERYONE. [TOP RATE 28%] BUT, everyone PAYS.
Odrama saw no way to promote his class warfare agenda with that recommendation so he ignored everything the commission reported. Most of which would go a long long way to help the economy and get the debt reduced on an ongoing basis.

 

History has shown us 3 types of revolt.

1) Gandhi Revolution. A united people totally shutting down until the top gives in. As workers and consumers. Probably the most effective, especially under the current scenario, as we would garnish sympathy from the world's populace, as non-violent revolt typically does. Force the top to be the monsters we both know they are.

2)Nazi Germany type regime change. Get nationalists into power, city by city, county by county, state by state, until a nationalist is voted in as president as the final key ingredient. This might be the hardest. If we started today, such a process would take decades to go through, and America could be long gone in the process. NOTE: I'm not saying vote in white nationalists or black nationalists, which are a totally different type of politics. America is a multicultural society, where the majority, even those who claim white or black, are mutts, when you look at who we are on a macro, world-wide scale.

3)Revolution like the original. Would be bloody as all hell. Would have to have our own law enforcement and military on the team. Expect to be fighting other nation's troops, which would make killing easier, but technology like satellites in a nation where every inch is mapped would make this unprecedented. Would have to have people on the inside from the start.

If there is a 4th option please let me know. These are the obvious 3. All would be great sorrow and pain to get our nation back from the global regime. Nothing worthwhile is easy. At this point I have zero faith in the global regime, and day by day as they come to realization that no matter what they do Americans won't fight, one can only imagine what the future will hold. It will just become harder the longer we wait, not easier.

 

You make the mistake of believing that Americans actually know what they are voting for. There are people who voted for Carter, Reagan, Clinton twice, Bush twice, and then Obama. I have no respect for such wishy washy voters. They just vote with some kind of general fuzzy feeling of how they feel the economy is doing or the way they believe the tide of public opinion is going, but seem to have no grasp of what the parties actually stand for (or claim to stand for anyway).

These people see a bad economy and blame Obama, but they would give Obama credit if the economy was good. They inappropriately blamed the entire economic crisis on Bush, which Obama did end up benefiting from. I am an Obama supporter because I'm a liberal and he is the only choice there is, but the stupidity of many people who voted for him based on thinking Bush alone caused everything to go wrong will be easily swayed to believe someone else possesses a magical elixer. So I guess what I am trying to say is Obama will have anything but an easy victory. He will have to appeal to these "independents" and try to persuade them that he is the better choice. But who knows what kind of standards they are even using to evaluate candidates, so to me it's a toss up.

 

It's funny- Republicans invented the tea party to have a right wing agenda to play off from- to sound moderate. Who would've thought that they would both sink like lead together?

I agree with the OP and it's point and yeah- Obama will be re-elected. I am already looking ahead to 2016 to see which party will win that!

 

Do you think any of these is likely?

 

Can you please condence your prediction into one sentence so that I can apply it to my signiture later? Thanks in advance.

 

In the short term, probably the 1st is the most likely. However, people need to realize boycotts, strikes on a national scale, things of this nature play into the larger firms hands and destroy the new guy. The larger firms have the capital to withstand, and a Gandhi revolution would mark the end of all independent business, which is the complete opposite of desired result. The regime in India was foreign occupation, where as the regime in America is Americans in league with foreign elite. 2 totally different situations.

I don't think 2 will ever happen, as it is a meticulous strategy, Americans are more about right now, and fact is if any such movement started to take root the leaders would be killed or jailed before it got any traction.

The 3rd is the most likely in the long run. Prior generations of Americans, while noticing the corruption, while noticing our nation was going down the wrong path, all still had an eventual nice home, paths to success, basically hope on an individual basis. Those in the baby boomer generation that were unsuccessful in life were few and far between, and most were the product of their own devices. Why baby boomers don't get how hard it is on the younger generations to succeed, and think it is 60 million kids fault. An America with more and more corruption daily, with the baby boomers gone, is the great majority without hope or nice lives to keep them from fighting.