On April 27 2012 02:48 GhostTK wrote: I hate Mitt Romney. He stands for everythin im against. i really hope he doesn't win. My preferred presidential canidate was Ron Paul, 2 bad he withdrew.
He didn't withdraw, and is in fact, still in the running, despite attempts by the GOP to steal delegates from him
Funny statement considering the Ron Paul compaign was actually the one trying to steal delegates from other candidates at various caucuses, with the RP supporters consistently staying after the vote to get elected to represent the state. If the other candidates had be doing that to Ron Paul, the rage of RP supporters would make every political forum online unreadable.
Face it, Romney doesn't need to "steal" delegates from Ron Paul - he's vastly more popular among the Republican electorate and will win the nomination in a landslide in terms of delegate count.
How is being proactive and running for delegates "stealing" delegates from other candidates? Ron Paul's supporters are much more dedicated than the senior citizens being bused in to vote for Romney, so they actually stick around to become delegates. Ron Paul supporters are actually working by the rules of the election process; it's the Republican establishment that is breaking rules and committing fraud in order to prevent Ron Paul from obtaining delegates.
lol, Romney is by no means popular at all. Pretty much no one outside of like Massachusetts and Utah actually like Romney as a person, they only vote for him because they perceive him to be the person with the best shot at beating Obama.
Imagine the following scenario: there are 1000 people voting in a caucus with ten delegates to be awarded. 990 of these people vote for Ron Paul, the last ten for Romney. After the 990 people who voted for Ron Paul end up leaving once the voting is over, the 10 people who voted for Romney take the delegate seats, with the intention of giving their votes to Romney - therefore completely nullifying the entire vote that just took place, that was the entire point of the caucus, and which Ron Paul overwhelmingly won. This is pretty much what's going on in some caucuses (or at least what did go on in some places), except Ron Paul was the one profiting from it rather than Romney/Santorum/etc. If this was happening to Ron Paul, his supporters would be OUTRAGED.
Yeah, they'd be outraged at their fellow Ron Paul supporters for not following the process all the way through and staying to represent Ron Paul as a delegate.
Ron Paul supporters are far more dedicated and far more knowledgeable about the election process, unlike supporters of the other candidates. It's preposterous that you're getting upset over people following procedure, but giving the people who breaking rules a pass.
Not necessarily. It's just that since there are more D's and R's than there are Ron Paul supporters, it just seems that way. I'm sure if you got actual numbers, they'd be pretty comparable.
Then again, it'd be hard to quantify the number of people who are "knowledgeable" about the election process anyway.
Yeah I don't disagree with you on that first point point, but something has to be said when supposedly Ron Paul has 1/10th the support of other candidates, but the other candidates can't find nearly as many people who know/are willing to hang around in order to become delegates. I would be willing to put money on the fact that if you gave everyone the US citizenship test or a test on the Constitution, or on how the electoral college works, Ron Paul supporters would score higher than Romney or Obama supporters.
One gets the impression that the average Mitt Romney donors are millionaires and billionaires that can fart out thousand dollar checks in order to pay to buy thousands of ads that tell the republican sheep who to vote for and send busloads of senior citizens to the polls, while the average Ron Paul donors are military personnel and college students trying to scrape together $20.12 for a donation, who stand in the rain to wave signs from bridges, and most importantly, get directly involved with the election process.
Well you're certainly very knowledgeable and precise about how smart everyone who agrees with you is and how dumb everyone who disagrees is. You might also want to inquire of the good Doctor whether he supports demonizing the rich and old, he being both, as if you were precisely the kind of class warrior Dr. Paul fights against. These things are, though, a sad if typical consequence of youth in politics.
I think Ron Paul's a loon on any subject and I know far more about the Constitution than he or any of his supporters do. Political opinions have little if anything to do with intelligence or knowledge.
On April 29 2012 16:09 DannyJ wrote: Uh.... what the hell is up with the pitbull is delicious part!!!!
He was both poking fun at Palin (her original line was "What's the difference between a hockey mom and a pitbull? Lipstick") and at a recent superpac ad by republicans which was attacking him for having eaten a dog as a child.
On April 29 2012 14:01 kwizach wrote: You realize he's not the one passing legislation, right? :p If he does his best to convince Congress to pass a certain policy but they steadily refuse, how is that his fault?
That only works for policies in 2011. He had a Democratic majority in Congress in 2009 and 2010 and they still passed very little.
Let's be honest, Obama has not been a good president. He started his presidency hoping to be compared to FDR or Lincoln. Now he's just hoping people won't compare him to Carter or Hoover.
The important question: can Romney do better? We'll have to see how he does as a politician. The tragedy is that most of the blind rage against the GOP belies the fact that Romney was a productive governor of a heavily Democratic state and was able to compromise on issues that made the state fiscally sound and socially responsible. The current hostile political environment and the brutal Republican primary seems to have given him weak knees - he's turned ashamed of his past successes and he's been forced to suppress most of the qualities that made him a good leader.
I would put it this way: the Democrats and Obama deserve to lose. The Republicans do not deserve to win. Romney perhaps doesn't either.
There is much less party cohesion in the US than elsewhere. Having a Democratic majority is not synonymous with being able to automatically pass what you want to pass. See for example how he tried to close Guantanamo but failed. Obama has been a very good president - what he probably should have done better is explain to the American people why the right's rhetoric on healthcare, the debt, etc. was bogus.
On April 29 2012 14:01 kwizach wrote: You realize he's not the one passing legislation, right? :p If he does his best to convince Congress to pass a certain policy but they steadily refuse, how is that his fault?
That only works for policies in 2011. He had a Democratic majority in Congress in 2009 and 2010 and they still passed very little.
Let's be honest, Obama has not been a good president. He started his presidency hoping to be compared to FDR or Lincoln. Now he's just hoping people won't compare him to Carter or Hoover.
The important question: can Romney do better? We'll have to see how he does as a politician. The tragedy is that most of the blind rage against the GOP belies the fact that Romney was a productive governor of a heavily Democratic state and was able to compromise on issues that made the state fiscally sound and socially responsible. The current hostile political environment and the brutal Republican primary seems to have given him weak knees - he's turned ashamed of his past successes and he's been forced to suppress most of the qualities that made him a good leader.
I would put it this way: the Democrats and Obama deserve to lose. The Republicans do not deserve to win. Romney perhaps doesn't either.
There is much less party cohesion in the US than elsewhere. Having a Democratic majority is not synonymous with being able to automatically pass what you want to pass. See for example how he tried to close Guantanamo but failed. Obama has been a very good president - what he probably should have done better is explain to the American people why the right's rhetoric on healthcare, the debt, etc. was bogus.
But as long as we're digging through the history books, it's worth noting that Obama might not always have been on the side he's currently taking in the debt debate. Obama started tonight's speech by noting that another predecessor of his, President George W. Bush, is responsible for a substantial portion of the national debt. This is true. And what did Obama, as Senator, say when Bush wanted to raise the debt limit? Here's ABC News with the relevant quote:
“The fact that we are here today to debate raising America’s debt limit is a sign of leadership failure,” he said. “It is a sign that the U.S. Government can’t pay its own bills. It is a sign that we now depend on ongoing financial assistance from foreign countries to finance our Government’s reckless fiscal policies. … Leadership means that ‘the buck stops here.’ Instead, Washington is shifting the burden of bad choices today onto the backs of our children and grandchildren. America has a debt and a failure of leadership. Americans deserve better. I therefore intend to oppose the effort to increase America’s debt limit.”
Sounds pretty good to me. Of course we all know it's partisanship. I remember all the Democrats railing about the debt and deficits under Bush. Of course they didn't give a rats ass, but they knew the average American did because it directly effects them and their future progeny. If you think debt is so great, maybe you should take out 20 credit cards and see how wealthy you become. Get back to me on how that turns out.
On April 29 2012 14:01 kwizach wrote: You realize he's not the one passing legislation, right? :p If he does his best to convince Congress to pass a certain policy but they steadily refuse, how is that his fault?
That only works for policies in 2011. He had a Democratic majority in Congress in 2009 and 2010 and they still passed very little.
Let's be honest, Obama has not been a good president. He started his presidency hoping to be compared to FDR or Lincoln. Now he's just hoping people won't compare him to Carter or Hoover.
The important question: can Romney do better? We'll have to see how he does as a politician. The tragedy is that most of the blind rage against the GOP belies the fact that Romney was a productive governor of a heavily Democratic state and was able to compromise on issues that made the state fiscally sound and socially responsible. The current hostile political environment and the brutal Republican primary seems to have given him weak knees - he's turned ashamed of his past successes and he's been forced to suppress most of the qualities that made him a good leader.
I would put it this way: the Democrats and Obama deserve to lose. The Republicans do not deserve to win. Romney perhaps doesn't either.
There is much less party cohesion in the US than elsewhere. Having a Democratic majority is not synonymous with being able to automatically pass what you want to pass. See for example how he tried to close Guantanamo but failed. Obama has been a very good president - what he probably should have done better is explain to the American people why the right's rhetoric on healthcare, the debt, etc. was bogus.
But as long as we're digging through the history books, it's worth noting that Obama might not always have been on the side he's currently taking in the debt debate. Obama started tonight's speech by noting that another predecessor of his, President George W. Bush, is responsible for a substantial portion of the national debt. This is true. And what did Obama, as Senator, say when Bush wanted to raise the debt limit? Here's ABC News with the relevant quote:
“The fact that we are here today to debate raising America’s debt limit is a sign of leadership failure,” he said. “It is a sign that the U.S. Government can’t pay its own bills. It is a sign that we now depend on ongoing financial assistance from foreign countries to finance our Government’s reckless fiscal policies. … Leadership means that ‘the buck stops here.’ Instead, Washington is shifting the burden of bad choices today onto the backs of our children and grandchildren. America has a debt and a failure of leadership. Americans deserve better. I therefore intend to oppose the effort to increase America’s debt limit.”
Sounds pretty good to me. Of course we all know it's partisanship. I remember all the Democrats railing about the debt and deficits under Bush. Of course they didn't give a rats ass, but they knew the average American did because it directly effects them and their future progeny. If you think debt is so great, maybe you should take out 20 credit cards and see how wealthy you become. Get back to me on how that turns out.
Who said anything about debt being great? Debt problems, however, can only be solved through a healthy economy and not by a focus only on austerity measures which solves nothing, sacrifices growth and is detrimental to the well-being of citizens and to the long-term prosperity of the state. I know you disagree with pretty much anything that is not directly out of the Austrian school when it comes to economics, so it's pointless to discuss this with you, we won't achieve anything.
Obama will smash Romney since the Republican party dragged on their primaries for so long and most of the part is still divided about whether or not they actually support Romney. Plus they have tea party extremists ruining their image even though they are the vocal minority. Which means, if Obama continues what he's been doing, U.S. will be super fucked in debt just in time for me to graduate and find a job, yaaay. And the most depressing part is that the next best option is China, ugh.
On April 30 2012 02:03 Count9 wrote: Obama will smash Romney since the Republican party dragged on their primaries for so long and most of the part is still divided about whether or not they actually support Romney. Plus they have tea party extremists ruining their image even though they are the vocal minority. Which means, if Obama continues what he's been doing, U.S. will be super fucked in debt just in time for me to graduate and find a job, yaaay. And the most depressing part is that the next best option is China, ugh.
O_o? Sorry if this is me being dumb, but I didn't quite follow your post well enough to see where China came into the picture.
On April 30 2012 00:32 DeepElemBlues wrote: Well you're certainly very knowledgeable and precise about how smart everyone who agrees with you is and how dumb everyone who disagrees is. You might also want to inquire of the good Doctor whether he supports demonizing the rich and old, he being both, as if you were precisely the kind of class warrior Dr. Paul fights against. These things are, though, a sad if typical consequence of youth in politics.
I think Ron Paul's a loon on any subject and I know far more about the Constitution than he or any of his supporters do. Political opinions have little if anything to do with intelligence or knowledge.
I could link articles from Massachusetts, Colorado, Nevada, Iowa, Washington, and Maine, but I won't. Insulting Paul is fair game. I know your in the Romney camp this year. The real question is which keeps you warmer? The frothy Hard-Right Wing hatred of true conservatism, or those laughably outdated presumptious delegate totals?
In your expertise, I'm sure your familiar with the GOP rules reguarding plurality and exactly how Paul is going to proceed from this point, whether it was strategy or not. Whether GOP likes it or not. It takes 5 states. It wasn't looking good for a while, but after managing to get some delagates in Romney strongholds, now we go into political overtime.
I've said before if it was over, I would say it was over. It's looking a lot more like it's not. Even Sarah Palin's worst in-state enemy(State GOP chair, and his co-chair), who sat thru 6-7 presidential elections has fallen to Paulians. My state votes soon. GOP 2.0 incoming. After bug fixes, the product might be market-worthy again in 10 years. Some tumors are tougher than others.
On April 30 2012 00:32 DeepElemBlues wrote: Well you're certainly very knowledgeable and precise about how smart everyone who agrees with you is and how dumb everyone who disagrees is. You might also want to inquire of the good Doctor whether he supports demonizing the rich and old, he being both, as if you were precisely the kind of class warrior Dr. Paul fights against. These things are, though, a sad if typical consequence of youth in politics.
I think Ron Paul's a loon on any subject and I know far more about the Constitution than he or any of his supporters do. Political opinions have little if anything to do with intelligence or knowledge.
Who's demonizing the rich and the old? I just stated that Romney's support comes from generally comes from rich donors and senior citizens, and that unlike Paul supporters, they are unaware/unwilling to stick around for the delegate selection process. Do you disagree with this fact?
And yeah, I'm sure anonymous guy puffing out his chest on a starcraft forum is more knowledgeable than someone who's been at the forefront of constitutional issues for 12 congressional terms.
On April 30 2012 00:32 DeepElemBlues wrote: Well you're certainly very knowledgeable and precise about how smart everyone who agrees with you is and how dumb everyone who disagrees is. You might also want to inquire of the good Doctor whether he supports demonizing the rich and old, he being both, as if you were precisely the kind of class warrior Dr. Paul fights against. These things are, though, a sad if typical consequence of youth in politics.
I think Ron Paul's a loon on any subject and I know far more about the Constitution than he or any of his supporters do. Political opinions have little if anything to do with intelligence or knowledge.
I could link articles from Massachusetts, Colorado, Nevada, Iowa, Washington, and Maine, but I won't. Insulting Paul is fair game. I know your in the Romney camp this year. The real question is which keeps you warmer? The frothy Hard-Right Wing hatred of true conservatism, or those laughably outdated presumptious delegate totals?
In your expertise, I'm sure your familiar with the GOP rules reguarding plurality and exactly how Paul is going to proceed from this point, whether it was strategy or not. Whether GOP likes it or not. It takes 5 states. It wasn't looking good for a while, but after managing to get some delagates in Romney strongholds, now we go into political overtime.
I've said before if it was over, I would say it was over. It's looking a lot more like it's not. Even Sarah Palin's worst in-state enemy(State GOP chair, and his co-chair), who sat thru 6-7 presidential elections has fallen to Paulians. My state votes soon. GOP 2.0 incoming. After bug fixes, the product might be market-worthy again in 10 years. Some tumors are tougher than others.
Regardless of whether the nomination is technically over, Romney is still going to be the nominee. Paul's reach is not going beyond caucus states and other states where his enthusiastic base can disproportionately influence delegate assignment.
Still, I am happy to see Paul do well because I like the libertarian influence that he extends over the republican party. I am sure that he is tickled to death to finally get some recognition for his ideas at the twilight of his career.
Also, I still think Bush was a pretty good leader. He just sucked at media. And the media just LOVED to hate on him. That man made some of the toughest decision an American President has made, none of which were going to be popular ones. I honestly feel bad for him. He was portrayed as a villain across the world for reasons I will never understand. The American people would have had his head on a plate had he not declared war on someone after 9/11. I guess the Iraq invasion may have been ill-advised in hindsight, but on the bright-side, we did get rid of Saddam.
I'm really not sure why the international community hates Bush so much.
The line in bold is EXACTLY the kind of American Idiocy that explains why the international community thinks Americans are NAIVE, self-serving and clueless, and exactly the kind of image Bush built for America.
You're basically saying Bush was justified in starting a war -- with ANYONE -- because Americans need revenge -- AGAINST anything -- or else, Americans would have been ... sad and mad at him. That's it's better to start a trillion dollar, irrational war in haste than actually do something that makes sense. That a harsh reaction that 'feels right' is forgivable, regardless of the consequences.
-- There is a critical difference to the way Bush and Obama approach international affair Americans need to respect. Bush touted American exceptionalism and righteousness to the extent that it made it impossible for other international leaders to support him, without drawing criticism or looking like they were 'folding to Americans.
Obama creates the sense of partnership and let's other country's "lead" -- even if its just an illusion. It's that kind of subtle leadership and diplomacy that America lacked for 8 years of Bush.
As an American, I find that either the foreign folk are completely naive, or ignorant when it comes to Obama especially in regard to Foreign Policy. Far be it from a different worldview, Obama has embraced and continued apace Bush's neo-conservative and Wilsonian Foreign Policy. Hell, even the Kristol of Neo-Conservative fame has called Obama a Neo-Con at least in regards to FP. More tortures and renditions, even more drone strikes than Bush ever dreamed of, more wars abreast, more aggression, more of the same of everything. Bush never could have gotten away with assassinating American citizens, but Obama does so with impunity, as well as deftly silencing the ignorant anti-war so-called 'left'. Where the hell are they at?
No, if you want a different FP the only choice is Ron Paul. Ron Paul and Non-interventionism and a return to American jurisprudence is what this country and the world needs.
As an aside, I've never seen Obama as a likeable guy. He's always come off as a haughty aristocratic asshole to me. /shrug
As a Canadian, I find it completely naive that you assume that foreign folk are completely naive.
Obama is hawk. And he's BETTER and more efficient at it than Bush ever was. You assume foreigners are "anti-war" -- whatever the hell you think that means -- when most of us are against anti-stupidity and anti-war-profiteering.
It was clear to everyone outside of America that there was very little evidence of any connection to Bin Laden to Iraq, no evidence of WMDs, and that the only people that would benefit from a full-scale Iraq war was military contractors with conspicuous ties to Cheney and Bush.
On April 29 2012 10:23 GhandiEAGLE wrote: it says something when just about everybody in smarter countries wants Obama re-elected
Most people in other countries don't really understand American politics. And the truth is that most foreign nationals who DO follow American politics are likely to favor the Democratic mentality. It's just like how most Americans who study International affairs tend to be Dems. You're also talking about a generation who grew up with American wars and the GWB hate that was spewed by... everyone.
Republican government theory (state's rights) is based on American history and culture. It's not surprising in the least that foreigners are unable to relate to it.
Yes, I'd attribute most non-Americans preference for Obama to his knack for foreign relations and affairs. He presents America to the rest of the world with grace and humility, and doesn't needlessly make things adversarial. And he actually seems informed and knowledgeable about international affairs.
Mitt Romney called Russia your Number 1 geopolitical foe -- what planet is he on? That kind of schoolyard fear-mongering might score points with dumb voters, but it actually lowers your standing and credibility in the international community. Remember when the Pentagon changed french fries to Freedom fries? That's something 10 year-olds do. "Waaaah! If you don't do what I say, we're not best friends anymore!"
Even if Obama doesn't get reelected, he was certainly the type of president America needed when anti-American sentiments were at an all time high. People forget that after Katrina, the Iraq War, and market collapse, the international community HATED America and it's government. Seriously -- you have no idea how thoroughly the Bush administration tarnished America's image abroad.
Obama deserves a lot of credit for mending a lot of fences. For example, the way he's handling Iran by punishing them with sanctions is very smart. By demonstrating patience, and going 'through the motions' of diplomacy, America will have the support of the international community if and when it goes to war with Iran, instead of being left holding the bag with Iraq or Afghanistan.
Also, Obama is simply a charming, funny, likeable guy. After 8 years of Bush's American unironic, jingoistic, self-serving clusterfucking, seeing an American leader with a sense of humor and wit is a nice change of pace.
Even if you hate your president, it's hard to hate the man.
As an aside, I've never seen Obama as a likeable guy. He's always come off as a haughty aristocratic asshole to me. /shrug
Populism, which is why Paul shouldn't even be a candidate to vote for. The internet generation doesn't look kindly upon enemies of intellectualism.
As an American, I find that either the foreign folk are completely naive, or ignorant when it comes to Obama especially in regard to Foreign Policy. Far be it from a different worldview, Obama has embraced and continued apace Bush's neo-conservative and Wilsonian Foreign Policy. Hell, even the Kristol of Neo-Conservative fame has called Obama a Neo-Con at least in regards to FP. More tortures and renditions, even more drone strikes than Bush ever dreamed of, more wars abreast, more aggression, more of the same of everything. Bush never could have gotten away with assassinating American citizens, but Obama does so with impunity, as well as deftly silencing the ignorant anti-war so-called 'left'. Where the hell are they at?
This.
Obama hasn't really changed much. He promised the world, and when he took office, he realized that a lot of what Bush was doing was correct. Military surges, Gitmo, Pakistan strikes, etc... I respect Obama for having the ability to acknowledge this privately (even if not publicly), but it'd be nice if both he and Mitt just acknowledged who they were and didn't play to the bases.
Also, I still think Bush was a pretty good leader. He just sucked at media. And the media just LOVED to hate on him. That man made some of the toughest decision an American President has made, none of which were going to be popular ones. I honestly feel bad for him. He was portrayed as a villain across the world for reasons I will never understand. The American people would have had his head on a plate had he not declared war on someone after 9/11. I guess the Iraq invasion may have been ill-advised in hindsight, but on the bright-side, we did get rid of Saddam.
I'm really not sure why the international community hates Bush so much.
To me there is a huge difference between starting a war (the one in Iraq) and continuing it. Also: To completely disregarding the international opinions (UN and NATO even) and starting wars, to making a supported choice of keeping soldiers for other purposes than war (peace-protection and education). The war in Libya was a gesture from the USA. It was a war wanted by especially France and USA accepted to help Europe. It was not Obamas war!
The difference between completely shitting on allies and doing whatever you feel like and accepting that you have to at least listen to others before making your choices is what most people outside the USA is reacting on. Bush did what he wanted and probably because he believed it was best for USA. Obama is accepting that it is necessary to communicate with the rest of the world. Obama has probably even been too flexible in this regard, but it is far better than completely ignoring the rest of the world.
And please keep Ron Paul away from the choice. It is more important to discuss the chance of earth being hit by a meteor before the election. Most likely he won't even run as a 3rd party candidate!
On April 30 2012 04:40 radiatoren wrote: Bush did what he wanted and probably because he believed it was best for USA.
That's the part I disagree with. He did what AMERICANS wanted.
I concede, the Iraq decision may have been a poor one in hindsight. But Americans wanted it, and I think it's unfair to dump all the blame on him. The Democrats voted for it too. I just feel like too much blame is placed directly on him. Even if he vetoed it, there was enough support in congress to override him.
On April 30 2012 00:32 DeepElemBlues wrote: Well you're certainly very knowledgeable and precise about how smart everyone who agrees with you is and how dumb everyone who disagrees is. You might also want to inquire of the good Doctor whether he supports demonizing the rich and old, he being both, as if you were precisely the kind of class warrior Dr. Paul fights against. These things are, though, a sad if typical consequence of youth in politics.
I think Ron Paul's a loon on any subject and I know far more about the Constitution than he or any of his supporters do. Political opinions have little if anything to do with intelligence or knowledge.
I could link articles from Massachusetts, Colorado, Nevada, Iowa, Washington, and Maine, but I won't. Insulting Paul is fair game. I know your in the Romney camp this year. The real question is which keeps you warmer? The frothy Hard-Right Wing hatred of true conservatism, or those laughably outdated presumptious delegate totals?
In your expertise, I'm sure your familiar with the GOP rules reguarding plurality and exactly how Paul is going to proceed from this point, whether it was strategy or not. Whether GOP likes it or not. It takes 5 states. It wasn't looking good for a while, but after managing to get some delagates in Romney strongholds, now we go into political overtime.
I've said before if it was over, I would say it was over. It's looking a lot more like it's not. Even Sarah Palin's worst in-state enemy(State GOP chair, and his co-chair), who sat thru 6-7 presidential elections has fallen to Paulians. My state votes soon. GOP 2.0 incoming. After bug fixes, the product might be market-worthy again in 10 years. Some tumors are tougher than others.
What's great we even took Romney's own district HAHA. What a buffoon, guy can't even win his own district in Mass. We took down State Senators who were there to be delegates for him on the slate. Completely destroyed him. Yesterday was a great day. Always nice to see the Establishment squirm, huff & puff, and get pushed aside.
As an American, I find that either the foreign folk are completely naive, or ignorant when it comes to Obama especially in regard to Foreign Policy. Far be it from a different worldview, Obama has embraced and continued apace Bush's neo-conservative and Wilsonian Foreign Policy. Hell, even the Kristol of Neo-Conservative fame has called Obama a Neo-Con at least in regards to FP. More tortures and renditions, even more drone strikes than Bush ever dreamed of, more wars abreast, more aggression, more of the same of everything. Bush never could have gotten away with assassinating American citizens, but Obama does so with impunity, as well as deftly silencing the ignorant anti-war so-called 'left'. Where the hell are they at?
No, if you want a different FP the only choice is Ron Paul. Ron Paul and Non-interventionism and a return to American jurisprudence is what this country and the world needs.
As an aside, I've never seen Obama as a likeable guy. He's always come off as a haughty aristocratic asshole to me. /shrug
As a Canadian, I find it completely naive that you assume that foreign folk are completely naive.
Obama is hawk. And he's BETTER and more efficient at it than Bush ever was. You assume foreigners are "anti-war" -- whatever the hell you think that means -- when most of us are against anti-stupidity and anti-war-profiteering.
It was clear to everyone outside of America that there was very little evidence of any connection to Bin Laden to Iraq, no evidence of WMDs, and that the only people that would benefit from a full-scale Iraq war was military contractors with conspicuous ties to Cheney and Bush.
On April 30 2012 04:40 radiatoren wrote: Bush did what he wanted and probably because he believed it was best for USA.
That's the part I disagree with. He did what AMERICANS wanted.
I concede, the Iraq decision may have been a poor one in hindsight. But Americans wanted it, and I think it's unfair to dump all the blame on him. The Democrats voted for it too. I just feel like too much blame is placed directly on him. Even if he vetoed it, there was enough support in congress to override him.
It's what Americans "wanted" because Bush's administration spent a year convincing them it's what they wanted. Putting the blame on anyone but Bush's shoulders is completely illogical.
You also said Bush has made some of the toughest decisions of any President. I strongly doubt if he has had to make any decisions. He couldn't even decide if he should stop reading along with little children while his country was under attack. He didn't make decisions, he waited for people to tell him what to do next.
On April 29 2012 14:01 kwizach wrote: You realize he's not the one passing legislation, right? :p If he does his best to convince Congress to pass a certain policy but they steadily refuse, how is that his fault?
That only works for policies in 2011. He had a Democratic majority in Congress in 2009 and 2010 and they still passed very little.
Let's be honest, Obama has not been a good president. He started his presidency hoping to be compared to FDR or Lincoln. Now he's just hoping people won't compare him to Carter or Hoover.
The important question: can Romney do better? We'll have to see how he does as a politician. The tragedy is that most of the blind rage against the GOP belies the fact that Romney was a productive governor of a heavily Democratic state and was able to compromise on issues that made the state fiscally sound and socially responsible. The current hostile political environment and the brutal Republican primary seems to have given him weak knees - he's turned ashamed of his past successes and he's been forced to suppress most of the qualities that made him a good leader.
I would put it this way: the Democrats and Obama deserve to lose. The Republicans do not deserve to win. Romney perhaps doesn't either.
There is much less party cohesion in the US than elsewhere. Having a Democratic majority is not synonymous with being able to automatically pass what you want to pass. See for example how he tried to close Guantanamo but failed. Obama has been a very good president - what he probably should have done better is explain to the American people why the right's rhetoric on healthcare, the debt, etc. was bogus.
But as long as we're digging through the history books, it's worth noting that Obama might not always have been on the side he's currently taking in the debt debate. Obama started tonight's speech by noting that another predecessor of his, President George W. Bush, is responsible for a substantial portion of the national debt. This is true. And what did Obama, as Senator, say when Bush wanted to raise the debt limit? Here's ABC News with the relevant quote:
“The fact that we are here today to debate raising America’s debt limit is a sign of leadership failure,” he said. “It is a sign that the U.S. Government can’t pay its own bills. It is a sign that we now depend on ongoing financial assistance from foreign countries to finance our Government’s reckless fiscal policies. … Leadership means that ‘the buck stops here.’ Instead, Washington is shifting the burden of bad choices today onto the backs of our children and grandchildren. America has a debt and a failure of leadership. Americans deserve better. I therefore intend to oppose the effort to increase America’s debt limit.”
Sounds pretty good to me. Of course we all know it's partisanship. I remember all the Democrats railing about the debt and deficits under Bush. Of course they didn't give a rats ass, but they knew the average American did because it directly effects them and their future progeny. If you think debt is so great, maybe you should take out 20 credit cards and see how wealthy you become. Get back to me on how that turns out.
Something might have happened that would change someone's opinion about national debt issues say around late 2008. Have any idea what it could have been? Or do you think no matter the context someone should always hold the same policy position?
In fact Obama, probably at the nudging of conservatives in his administration (he has a ton of economic conservatives in this cabinet even if Republicans don't want to admit it) and media pressure, is too concerned with the debt at the moment. The best thing for a large debt is a strong economy. The answer to a struggling economy is stimulus. The problem at this point is that because conservatives have won the political deficit debate (Obama barely tried to win it) expectations of the public/businesses would be against a stimulus and even though a lot of lay people probably don't know it, expectations plays a HUGE part in policy making with respect to macro economics.
EPT
