Obama wil win easilly.

[Guest Peeves]

There's just not enough competition. Fact is, neither are good for the USA.

I think both parties should just start over from scratch.Look for a messiah in the bull rushes. Or in Hollywood...or a comedy club.

I wonder if I'd bother voting were I able. Doubt it. No one I could even vote 'against' as a protest.

Sad.

Boy I bet they wish they had a Harper.... or Trudeau.

[bush_cheney2004]

...I wonder if I'd bother voting were I able. Doubt it. No one I could even vote 'against' as a protest.

Sad.

Thems fightin' words....American citizens will be voting just as before. Unlike in Canada, it really matters!

[Guest American Woman]

I wonder if I'd bother voting were I able. Doubt it.

[...]

I bet they wish they had a Harper.... or Trudeau.

Yep. Whenever the election comes up, everyone I talk to says they aren't going to bother voting since we don't have any quality candidates, like Harper or Trudeau - adding "damn those Canadians, they're such lucky bastards."

[Fletch 27]

I dunno... I'm sure Obama cooked up his sales pitch.... No results....

In Canada, we have results... When people,especially see results, they like...

It's a shame about Obama, I like the guy but the states needs "change" and they expect it was immediately

Yep. Whenever the election comes up, everyone I talk to says they aren't going to bother voting since we don't have any quality candidates, like Harper or Trudeau - adding "damn those Canadians, they're such lucky bastards."

[Guest Manny]

It's a shame about Obama, I like the guy but the states needs "change" and they expect it was immediately

I agree with this but in reality I never expected anything substantial. I still remember the post-election euphoria that seemed to grip the whole world. I watched this with somewhat of a sense of amazement. I mean, they gave the guy the Nobel peace prize, preemptively, for peace that was yet to be even attempted, let alone achieved.

But such change as what people seemed to hope for can't be achieved in a single presidency, or maybe even a single lifetime. Political reality quickly rears its head. Disillusioning, sobering. Like a hangover... time for another drink

[Guest Peeves]

Yep. Whenever the election comes up, everyone I talk to says they aren't going to bother voting since we don't have any quality candidates, like Harper or Trudeau - adding "damn those Canadians, they're such lucky bastards."

For the record, I've never missed a vote, and this was tongue in cheek. But I don't think much of the American candidates of late, and less of the last couple of POTUS.

But it's true, we are lucky bastards. We have a reasonably good government and a better than average leader and a pretty good representative opposition even though it's mostly attuned to its majority, Quebec and socialistic union types.

[Guest American Woman]

For the record, I've never missed a vote, and this was tongue in cheek. But I don't think much of the American candidates of late, and less of the last couple of POTUS.

But it's true, we are lucky bastards. We have a reasonably good government and a better than average leader and a pretty good representative opposition even though it's mostly attuned to its majority, Quebec and socialistic union types.

I was being tongue in cheek too. But on a serious note, I was really glad that I didn't have to vote in your last election as I didn't think too much of your candidates - or their campaigns. Having said that, Americans and Canadians are all lucky bastards to live where they live.

[Guest American Woman]

I still remember the post-election euphoria that seemed to grip the whole world. ....

....such change as what people seemed to hope for can't be achieved in a single presidency, or maybe even a single lifetime. Political reality quickly rears its head. Disillusioning, sobering. Like a hangover... time for another drink

The president doesn't singularly have enough power to evoke drastic "change;" he has to work within the system. Furthermore, I think that once Obama became president and was privy to information that isn't 'out there for the world to see, he may have seen things somewhat differently. At any rate, his job isn't to please the world, it's to please Americans.

[bush_cheney2004]

The president doesn't singularly have enough power to evoke drastic "change;" he has to work within the system.

Of course...I don't think the rest of "the world" understands that. And frankly, President Obama purposely continued policies from the Bush administration despite promises from Candidate Obama (e.g. 'Gitmo).

Furthermore, I think that once Obama became president and was privy to information that isn't 'out there for the world to see, he may have seen things somewhat differently. At any rate, his job isn't to please the world, it's to please Americans.

Well stated...the president's first priority is America and the duties of the office, not catering to the wannabe wishes from abroad. Get your own "president".

[GostHacked]

Romney won't be able to build the support needed to take Obama down.

[Guest Peeves]

Romney won't be able to build the support needed to take Obama down.

Obama will get the massive vote from Hispanics he just appeased, and, those from the country oooops! State of his birth....

[Guest Manny]

Of course...I don't think the rest of "the world" understands that. And frankly, President Obama purposely continued policies from the Bush administration despite promises from Candidate Obama (e.g. 'Gitmo).

Well stated...the president's first priority is America and the duties of the office, not catering to the wannabe wishes from abroad. Get your own "president".

You insist on implying these are wannabe wishes from abroad, but they are not. Judging by the reaction from many, many Americans who celebrated vigorously that day. Far more than I've seen them celebrate ever before, immedaitely after an election. There must have been a number of things implied by candidate obama that resonated with that portion of the US public. They wanted the change he promised.

Evidently believeing one person could have the power to change things, they are the ones who don't realize how their own US system works.

But despite watching it imppartially I do not blame the poor fools for wanting things to improve in their lot.

[bush_cheney2004]

You insist on implying these are wannabe wishes from abroad, but they are not. Judging by the reaction from many, many Americans who celebrated vigorously that day.

My comments still apply to the wannabe wishes from abroad, regardless of domestic expectations and support.

Far more than I've seen them celebrate ever before, immedaitely after an election. There must have been a number of things implied by candidate obama that resonated with that portion of the US public. They wanted the change he promised.

Purely a sense for this place and time with new media, as previous US elections most certainly involved high expectations for far more important issues, and not insignificantly, without as many gushing wannabes as we have today. In 2008, a CBC poll found that 15% of Canadians would sacrifice their domestic vote for a chance to vote in the American election. Americans do not so easily rave about voting in foreign elections.

Evidently believeing one person could have the power to change things, they are the ones who don't realize how their own US system works.

They were supporting a candidate who told them to believe such things, but either way, it is their system, not for wannabes.

But despite watching it imppartially I do not blame the poor fools for wanting things to improve in their lot.

I feel the same way about Egypt, but I don't want to vote in their elections.

[Pliny]

Obama will not win the next election when it occurs and if he runs.

Reason 1: His AG will soon "fast and furiously" resign.

Reason 2: Obama is a socialist.Americans,for the most part (even some Democrats),are not.

Reason 3:He is a globalist who believes all other global powers are on the same page of just wanting America to join the global community. Actually,as far as the rest of the global powers are concerned, the knives have come out. He is selling American exceptionalism down the river. Maybe selling it "down the river" has some symbolic or subliminal attachment for him.(Kind of a Bill Maher joke, if you know what I mean.)

Reason 4: The SCOTUS will scuttle Obama's unaffordable health care act.

If the SCOTUS gives the green light to Obamacare. Forget

everything I have said.

The time will have come:

"Worker's of the World unite".

Edited June 21, 2012 by Pliny

[dre]

Obama is a socialist

:lol:

[bleeding heart]

Obama will not win the next election when it occurs and if he runs.

Reason 1: His AG will soon "fast and furiously" resign.

That won't sink Obama. Not even close.

Reason 2: Obama is a socialist.Americans,for the most part (even some Democrats),are not.

Obama is about as much a socialist as is Bill Clinton (or Stephen Harper). The chief difference in fact is that the Business community has given Obama more love than they gave Clinton.

Reason 3:He is a globalist who believes all other global powers are on the same page of just wanting America to join the global community.

It's boilerplate, but typical of powerful leaders, certainly of Presidents.

Actually,as far as the rest of the global powers are concerned, the knives have come out. He is selling American exceptionalism down the river.

No...nowhere has he hinted that anyone but the US has the right to commit to political assassinations via robot planes.

He thoroughly and to the bone believes in American exceptionalism.

Reason 4: The SCOTUS will scuttle Obama's unaffordable health care act.

Maybe. I can't say. That, too, would not sink his presidency; especially since his chief rival agrees with him on health care, even as he now pretends not to.

Edited June 21, 2012 by bleeding heart

[-TSS-]

Obama is a clear favourite to be re-elected but there's still more than four months to go. So I wouldn't bet my fortune on it.

[bleeding heart]

Obama is a clear favourite to be re-elected but there's still more than four months to go. So I wouldn't bet my fortune on it.

Agreed. You never know.

I seem to remember a not-too-long-ago Canadian election in which the conventional wisdom was that it was a waste of time, because everyone would remain exactly in the same position.

One majority government, one decimation of the country's traditionally most successful Party, one even bigger decimation of another Party, and one astonishing showing for the embattled leftists later...well, hardly anybody predicted it correctly.

[Pliny]

Obama is about as much a socialist as is Bill Clinton (or Stephen Harper). The chief difference in fact is that the Business community has given Obama more love than they gave Clinton.

Dre had a good laugh at that one as well. How about he is a little further left than Clinton on the traditional political spectrum, and Harper is a little right of Clinton?

Socialism is an ideology of totalitarian centralized government. It achieves that end "progressively". In a free, democratic society, especially one with universal democracy, there is a danger of a "progressive" centralization and growth of government towards the total State. Obama believes entirely in a central authority, a centrally planned economy, and the engineering of society from that central authority. He has the end goal of socialism in mind. I don't think Bill Clinton had that end goal in mind although he believed in the benevolence of government, which a lot of liberals do. No individual in the US would ever get elected President running on a platform of being a socialist - he would have to deny it or do as Obama did not deny it but avoid answering the charge. Even at this point in the political evolution of the US only a small minority of its citizens would openly support socialism. A greater percentage will vote for entitlements and privileges with the idea of humanitarianism or human rights or the necessity for war being justification for doing so, unwittingly trundling "progressively" towards the totally centralized ideological State known as the Socialist utopia.

He thoroughly and to the bone believes in American exceptionalism.

He believes in his own exceptionalism; not America's! He believes in leveling the playing field, socially and globally, he can only exercise a certain amount of force to accomplish bringing everyone down to a lowest common denominator or people might object.

But I left out the big reason why he won't get elected - the economy and jobs. The other reasons will just nibble away at his support.

[bleeding heart]

He believes in his own exceptionalism; not America's!

Of course he believes in American exceptionalism. That's not a criticism of him, by the way. It's the way it is.

He believes in leveling the playing field, socially and globally,

Obviously he does not. You have offered no evidence, in an entire post about the evils of creeping, sly socialism. None.

he can only exercise a certain amount of force to accomplish bringing everyone down to a lowest common denominator or people might object.

There's another term for this truism, which extrapolates universally, and it's called "democratic politics."

People will object to too much overreach, too much misuse of power, as you say...that kind of solves the dilemma you warn about so apocalyptically, doesn't it?

The chances remain good that Americans have little to truly fear from President Obama, or from President Romney....or rather, not in the portentous way you describe.

People elsewhere, in specific and targeted geostrategic realms...now they doubtless have some legitimate fears.

Edited June 22, 2012 by bleeding heart

[dre]

Dre had a good laugh at that one as well. How about he is a little further left than Clinton on the traditional political spectrum, and Harper is a little right of Clinton?

Socialism is an ideology of totalitarian centralized government. It achieves that end "progressively". In a free, democratic society, especially one with universal democracy, there is a danger of a "progressive" centralization and growth of government towards the total State. Obama believes entirely in a central authority, a centrally planned economy, and the engineering of society from that central authority. He has the end goal of socialism in mind. I don't think Bill Clinton had that end goal in mind although he believed in the benevolence of government, which a lot of liberals do. No individual in the US would ever get elected President running on a platform of being a socialist - he would have to deny it or do as Obama did not deny it but avoid answering the charge. Even at this point in the political evolution of the US only a small minority of its citizens would openly support socialism. A greater percentage will vote for entitlements and privileges with the idea of humanitarianism or human rights or the necessity for war being justification for doing so, unwittingly trundling "progressively" towards the totally centralized ideological State known as the Socialist utopia.

He believes in his own exceptionalism; not America's! He believes in leveling the playing field, socially and globally, he can only exercise a certain amount of force to accomplish bringing everyone down to a lowest common denominator or people might object.

But I left out the big reason why he won't get elected - the economy and jobs. The other reasons will just nibble away at his support.

No socialism is simply an economic scheme where the workers directly or indirectly own the means of production. Youre confusing it with "social programs" simply because they both share the word "social" but they are too completely different things.

Its also different from the modern mixed economy, or social democracy which is based on harnessing private enterprise to achieve social goals. This is basically how the entire western world has worked for the last century or so.

Mr Obama is a corporatist that believes the best way to achieve social goals is to give all kinds of perks and favors to private corporations. No real socialist would ever support anything this guy has done.

[Pliny]

Of course he believes in American exceptionalism. That's not a criticism of him, by the way. It's the way it is.

Obviously he does not. You have offered no evidence, in an entire post about the evils of creeping, sly socialism. None.

There isn't any evidence. There is no such thing. I know we can agree on that. (wink wink nudge nudge)

One only has to ask how the total State is arrived at. There are two means, one is revolutionary and the other evolutionary. One needs only to look at what is occurring.

There's another term for this truism, which extrapolates universally, and it's called "democratic politics."

People will object to too much overreach, too much misuse of power, as you say...that kind of solves the dilemma you warn about so apocalyptically, doesn't it?

They will, yes. This means that socialism must be, out of necessity, evolutionary in nature. Communism is merely a form of socialism that believes in arriving at the total state through revolution. Revolution is far too violent for most socialists today but some are still proponents of revolution. They would be called "communists". Through evolution, that is the adoption of centralized planning on an evolutionary basis, the total State can be achieved. As has been said by others, Communists are just socialists in a hurry.

The chances remain good that Americans have little to truly fear from President Obama, or from President Romney....or rather, not in the portentous way you describe.

As long as they hold a modicum of faith in the Constitution and its promise of limited government they have no fear of any President. When they vote for socialized medicine, nationalized corporations, or even a central banking system (as occurred a century ago), it must be said that they have no realization they are in peril of losing liberty and freedom.

People elsewhere, in specific and targeted geostrategic realms...now they doubtless have some legitimate fears.

Specifically targeted geostrategic realms? Sounds pretty conspiratorial! Do you have evidence of this?

[Pliny]

No socialism is simply an economic scheme where the workers directly or indirectly own the means of production. Youre confusing it with "social programs" simply because they both share the word "social" but they are too completely different things.

Of course. When we socialize medicine, that is just a social program run by the government, nothing to do with the means of production or how it is paid for. When we socialize education that is just a social program run by the government, nothing to do with the means of production or how it is paid for. When we offer welfare that is just a social program run by the government, nothing to do with the means of production or how it is paid for. When we plan the economy that is just a social program run by the government. When we subsidize industry that is just a social program run by the government. Eventually, everything is a social program and is a result of central planning. I think I would like Government to pay me my wages too. I think I deserve at least what the average is making.

Its also different from the modern mixed economy, or social democracy which is based on harnessing private enterprise to achieve social goals. This is basically how the entire western world has worked for the last century or so.

Increasingly so, and my point exactly.

Mr Obama is a corporatist that believes the best way to achieve social goals is to give all kinds of perks and favors to private corporations. No real socialist would ever support anything this guy has done.

Are you saying he is more a fascist? The total state is the total state fascist or communist or socialist it is the total state. I don't really care what flavour of total state one desires. The total state is the total state and is anathema to freedom and liberty.

[BubberMiley]

Obama believes entirely in a central authority, a centrally planned economy, and the engineering of society from that central authority. He has the end goal of socialism in mind.

Sneaky of him that he hasn't done anything to expose his ideology.

[Pliny]

Sneaky of him that he hasn't done anything to expose his ideology.

Open your eyes, Bubber. When his vision of society is to redistribute the wealth then who owns it? That occurs increasingly until you eventually have to admit you have a society where private property is no longer a reality and you can virtually say the people own the means of production, all share in it equally, distributed by the government. We call that socialism. He would never openly reveal his true intentions to the American people, they aren't socialized enough yet. Obamacare, his national healthcare plan, is a big step in the evolutionary process towards the total State. It will most likely get tossed out but if it isn't the socialists will become emboldened by it, just as they are emboldened by his constant rhetoric to "make the rich pay their fair share". It's called "the occupy movement".