Would have been even luckier if he had inherited a decent economy and not two wars though.
Someone said that to him in the WH soon after his election. His response?
"If it weren't for the two wars and the economy cratering I would not be here in the first place."
But don't forget that he has continued one war and only ended the other after an agreement was signed by Bash (sic) and the Iraqis to have complete withdrawal of troops when they did. Obomba (sic) and his allies has also destroyed Libya and are trying to do so in other countries. He has also spent more in four years than the other stooge in 8. No attempts at deficit reduction, etc etc. more bombs etc etc. Doesnt matter who's in p[ower, the finger pointing is for the sheeple, to make them feel better about their support of their parties.
Destroyed Libya? What are you talking about?
Obama has drawn a line in the sand, America cannot put boots on the ground to solve every problem in every country, it's just not possible - and it never was anyway.
The Obama "spending" is highly misleading, much of this spending is actually money already committed by Bush for Afghan/Iraq wars which Obama had no choice but to pursue.
Those slating Obama should tread carefully, I take it you will all be backing Labour over the Tories in 2015 for the same reasons, not turning the economy around in four years?
I am lifelong Labour but don't feel they have a rightful claim to retake power in 2015, for the same reasons the Republicans have no claim to the WH IN 2012.
Obviously you've missed the recent invasion of Libya by our friends and allies at Nato..Libya was thriving under Gaddaffi having brought them from the poorest country on the planet in 1951 to achieve the highest standard of living in Africa . He used his oil money to build infrastructure for his people. Free housing for all, free electricty for all, free medical care for all and even paid for it abroad if not available in Libya. Free education brought the literacy rate up from less than one-fifth to 83%. Women were encouraged to get invovled in the workforce,teaching ,becoming doctors etc ,which is rare in Arab countries. His greatest achievement of course was the great man made river,huge water reserves found underground in Libya. It was brought to the surface and pumped to almost all corners of Libya ,providing fresh water for all and they were irrigating parts of the desert to grow crops and make the country self sufficent. Our " friends and allies at Nato " destroyed these huge water pipes during their bombing campaigns. Tut tut. On July 1st 2011 1.7million Libyans turned out in Tripoli in defiance of Nato bombing The state owned central bank , with 0 % interest on all loans by law, was replaced during the bombing campaign by a western owned bank. Hmmm. Today Libya is in chaos and in the hands of crazed rebels. Well done Nato.The mistake Gaddaffi made was trying to introduce the gold Dinar into Africa . And selling his oil in a different currency other than the US dollar. As u may know the US dollar is the worlds reserve currency and if that were to change then the American economy goes down the tube. Its one of the US interests we hear so much about. Anyway, When Obombas (sic) administration was hauled before congress to explain the invasion ,which didnt have congress approval , the Secretary of Defense said they didn't need it. No . They only need approval from the international community.You can watch that c-span clip on youtube if you like. Its not good.
As for Labour, hahaha never ever. Tories never ever. Its the same old sad arguments that people like to waste time over. I like politicians that want to end wars, invasions and occupations. . Don't be spoonfed propaganda.People are dying out there.
Obviously you've missed the recent invasion of Libya by our friends and allies at Nato..Libya was thriving under Gaddaffi having brought them from the poorest country on the planet in 1951 to achieve the highest standard of living in Africa . He used his oil money to build infrastructure for his people. Free housing for all, free electricty for all, free medical care for all and even paid for it abroad if not available in Libya. Free education brought the literacy rate up from less than one-fifth to 83%. Women were encouraged to get invovled in the workforce,teaching ,becoming doctors etc ,which is rare in Arab countries. His greatest achievement of course was the great man made river,huge water reserves found underground in Libya. It was brought to the surface and pumped to almost all corners of Libya ,providing fresh water for all and they were irrigating parts of the desert to grow crops and make the country self sufficent. Our " friends and allies at Nato " destroyed these huge water pipes during their bombing campaigns. Tut tut. On July 1st 2011 1.7million Libyans turned out in Tripoli in defiance of Nato bombing The state owned central bank , with 0 % interest on all loans by law, was replaced during the bombing campaign by a western owned bank. Hmmm. Today Libya is in chaos and in the hands of crazed rebels. Well done Nato.The mistake Gaddaffi made was trying to introduce the gold Dinar into Africa . And selling his oil in a different currency other than the US dollar. As u may know the US dollar is the worlds reserve currency and if that were to change then the American economy goes down the tube. Its one of the US interests we hear so much about. Anyway, When Obombas (sic) administration was hauled before congress to explain the invasion ,which didnt have congress approval , the Secretary of Defense said they didn't need it. No . They only need approval from the international community.You can watch that c-span clip on youtube if you like. Its not good.
As for Labour, hahaha never ever. Tories never ever. Its the same old sad arguments that people like to waste time over. I like politicians that want to end wars, invasions and occupations. . Don't be spoonfed propaganda.People are dying out there.
You neglected to mention the role Gaddafi played in the terrorist bombing of Pan Am Flight 103 which killed 259 people. Or the Berlin bomb which killed or injured over 230 people . Or his support for the IRA. Or his orders that any Libyan dissidents be executed.
All on hold because of Sandy but, this sort of thing helps the incumbent asuming reasonable crisis management.
Maybe not in this case. Generally most early voters are republicans rather than democrats. Hurricane Sandy could prevent many getting out to vote - so it'll hurt the democrats more, as a lot of republican votes could already be cast
Would have been even luckier if he had inherited a decent economy and not two wars though.
Someone said that to him in the WH soon after his election. His response?
"If it weren't for the two wars and the economy cratering I would not be here in the first place."
Fair point, parties rarely win elections, incumbents normally lose them. Not sure Obama needed all three to win the election and a difference from GWB may have been enough, but I don't think any American president has inherited such a shambles before.
Thanks for the information on Libya BP. I think history from both perspectives is always interesting and helps form a view and develop the argument.
That's an excellent post, you obviously know your onions.
However, the truth is that if it were anyone else other than Obama in the WH then there would have been US troops deployed into Libya in big numbers, the Republicans were more than up for another middle-east adventure - just think how dangerous that would have been.
The Republicans would have been more than keen to get into Syria as well, they never want to miss a chance to kill a few brown skinned folks - if they're Muslim then what a bonus!
As for Gaddaffi, you make some very credible points in your post but the fact is that a dictator is a dictator is a dictator and for all of the good things you mention he had also inflicted huge cruelty on his people during his long reign - that's before mentioning the terrorist stuff.
Of course, there is also no denying the fact that the US tolerates dictators in plenty of other countries who are more amenable to US interests, Saudi Arabia, Jordan and most of Central Asia are good examples of this.
Moreover, Obama has also been remarkably restrained on Iran - which is why that odious scumbag Netanyahu has been openly campaigning for Romney and why AIPAC and people like Sheldon Adelson have spent tens of millions on trying to oust Obama from office.
Sure, Obama ain't perfect - nobody is and even Bill Clinton had to get the bombers out on a couple of occasions to get himself out of strife - but the alternative to Obama right now is too horrible to even think about.
This is good from Andrew Sullivan, who is a natural Republican, but voted Obama in '08 and will do again next Tuesday.
Unemployment is lower now than it was when he took office, and moving downward. Next year's IMF-predicted US growth is higher than any other developed country. Compared with austerity-ridden Europe, where unemployment is still climbing, Obama's, Geithner's and Bernanke's leadership has been stellar. The US has never exported as much as now as a percentage of GDP ever. Given the catastrophe Obama walked into, and the froth-flecked obstructionism of his opposition, he's had a remarkably successful, historic first term. His long game also makes much of the progress promised durable only if he gets a second term.
"The Republicans would have been more than keen to get into Syria as well, they never want to miss a chance to kill a few brown skinned folks - if they're Muslim then what a bonus!"
"The Republicans would have been more than keen to get into Syria as well, they never want to miss a chance to kill a few brown skinned folks - if they're Muslim then what a bonus!"
My turn, What a load of Bollocks!
Did you watch any of those fucking Republican arse clowns in their so called Primary debates? They were fucking itching to get into Libya with boots on the ground and desperately trying to outdo each other with who could be more aggressive towards Iran.
Why do you think Sheldon Adelson gave Newt Gingrich $30 million in campaign funding? Marital advice? He's now giving the same money to your mate Romney for the same reason, he wants an attack on Iran.
Mitt Romney has exactly the same foreign policy team as your beloved GW Bush - you remember him don't you ? - and pushes the Bush Doctrine just as enthusiastically, these people believe that the only way to secure America's future is by overwhelming military force.
Remind me again of how many wars Bush started in Muslim countries and of how well that all went?
The funniest thing is that the Chinese are currently taking over the world without firing a single shot, buying up huge chunks of the next growth engines of Africa and LATAM to cement their influence and there ain't a damn thing the US can do about it.
You neglected to mention the role Gaddafi played in the terrorist bombing of Pan Am Flight 103 which killed 259 people. Or the Berlin bomb which killed or injured over 230 people . Or his support for the IRA. Or his orders that any Libyan dissidents be executed.
A bit of research will show up that apparently Libya wasnt responsible for Pan-am 103. In fact a real can of worms opens up on that one. More Libyans were killed by retaliation bombing campaigns for the Berlin bomb but hey thats ok? Was Libya guilty of these crimes or was the west always intent on pinning atrocities on anti-western regimes? WMD? We ve heard all the BS and we see it was all lies . But hey ,lets ignore that shall we?. Can we condone the Nato invasion of Libya and ignore the wests invasion of Iraq which killed hundreds and hundreds of thousands of innocent civilians? All based on what we now know were lies? Let's not get on our self righteous horse and point fingers at so called rogue regimes and ignore mass genocides committed by western regimes. Dictatorships are not always great but the west had installed plenty of them to suit their foreign policy,funding them, arming them, etc. We all know that. Let us not shout from the treetops about the Syrian government when it is well reported and documented that the west is funding and arming al-qaeda rebels,among other listed terrorist organisations, in Syria . Let us not condeme Libyas support of the IRA unless we also condeme the wests support of terrorist groups in Syria and previously in Libya, groups that slaughter women and cut the throats of toddlers back to the spine, in order to justify an invasion of Syria. Should we be angry about these executions of dissidents when the US now can execute whomever they like whenever they like without any proof of guilt. That is scary stuff and its now written into the law over there. The point is they are all as bad as each other but rogue regimes kill thousands with their atrocities but western governments kill millions. iT NEEDS TO STOP.
Did you watch any of those fucking Republican arse clowns in their so called Primary debates? They were fucking itching to get into Libya with boots on the ground and desperately trying to outdo each other with who could be more aggressive towards Iran.
Ron Paul didn't. He talked common sense . Wanted to end the wars and protect American borders. He wanted to end the corruption and stand up for the rights and liberty of American citizens.Neither the republicans or democrats want that. They media laughed at him. The medias job is to dumb down the American people and spoon feed them propaganda. Its so obvious .
You neglected to mention the role Gaddafi played in the terrorist bombing of Pan Am Flight 103 which killed 259 people. Or the Berlin bomb which killed or injured over 230 people . Or his support for the IRA. Or his orders that any Libyan dissidents be executed.
A bit of research will show up that apparently Libya wasnt responsible for Pan-am 103.
To be honest I stopped reading at this point as there's not much point in arguing over something that the Libyan Government, under Gaddafi, have admitted to and paid reparations for and where former Members of Gaddafi's government have stated the he personally gave the order.
Hi Baron - quite emphatic views there and a few WTF! comments too (to the majority of us). Can I ask, do you have an attachment to Libya in any way as you seem quite passionate on the subject.
I have feeling that the glowing praise for Obama from Governor Christie of New Jersey (a Republican) over his intervention after 'Sandy' will sway the election right across to the democrats and Obama will get a second term.
I have feeling that the glowing praise for Obama from Governor Christie of New Jersey (a Republican) over his intervention after 'Sandy' will sway the election right across to the democrats and Obama will get a second term.
I think you are right there, his handling has thus far been impeccable at least it has seemed so from here, he should get a big boost from that, plus free prime time TV appearances CNN FOX etc.
Above has been mentioned the election timing, in terms of bad weather, the left's turnout lessens in bad weather (I still get confused between the labels democrats and republicans, so I'll use left and right. Having read Plato calling them republicans just confuses the hell out of me). I could be wrong but, my opinion is that the strength of feeling mitigates against any drop off in voter turnout, each side seems to be getting more and more impassioned fighting their respective corners QED. Add to that the expectations that no actual rebuilding will be started before the vote, whereas promises of help are being made now. The expectations of those promises will never be realised fully and any re/build conflict (as there are always differences of opinion) will not surface until well after the poll.
Despite the closeness of the opinion polls, I still think it's Obama's to lose, we will soon see.
This is good from Andrew Sullivan, who is a natural Republican, but voted Obama in '08 and will do again next Tuesday.
Unemployment is lower now than it was when he took office, and moving downward. Next year's IMF-predicted US growth is higher than any other developed country. Compared with austerity-ridden Europe, where unemployment is still climbing, Obama's, Geithner's and Bernanke's leadership has been stellar. The US has never exported as much as now as a percentage of GDP ever. Given the catastrophe Obama walked into, and the froth-flecked obstructionism of his opposition, he's had a remarkably successful, historic first term. His long game also makes much of the progress promised durable only if he gets a second term.
Making predictions on GDP growth is pointless until such time as real political consideration has been given to the fiscal cliff and budget reduction as mentioned above. None of that can take place until after the election which makes the debate somewhat pointless. We are all in for a rough ride especially if Obama wins, markets do not like uncertainty and that will be the staple diet over the next few months.
A bit of research will show up that apparently Libya wasnt responsible for Pan-am 103.
To be honest I stopped reading at this point as there's not much point in arguing over something that the Libyan Government, under Gaddafi, have admitted to and paid reparations for and where former Members of Gaddafi's government have stated the he personally gave the order.
If you have time, read this link... it may change your mind and is a depressingly credible report on the state of the international games Western politics plays...
Did you watch any of those fucking Republican arse clowns in their so called Primary debates? They were fucking itching to get into Libya with boots on the ground and desperately trying to outdo each other with who could be more aggressive towards Iran.
Ron Paul didn't. He talked common sense . Wanted to end the wars and protect American borders. He wanted to end the corruption and stand up for the rights and liberty of American citizens.Neither the republicans or democrats want that. They media laughed at him. The medias job is to dumb down the American people and spoon feed them propaganda. Its so obvious .
Yep, so true. And what was the response of the knuckle dragging scum in the audience? They booed him and the Fox News crowd derided him openly.
Ron Paul is batshit crazy on some issues but on foreign policy he tells it like it is and that makes the rest of the right-wing nutters absolutely mad as hell.
Remember, these are the people who booed a serving US army soldier - an Iraq War vet no less - because he was gay and wanted to be treated equally.
What is basically happening with the Republicans is what happened to the UK Labour Party between 1979-1987 when they were overtaken by the extremists in the party and totally abandoned the centre ground.
Since Bush won in 2000 the Republicans have gone ever further to the right, even Bush senior would no longer fit in the party and neither would Reagan. Both raised taxes and that is simply not allowed under Grover Norquist's Republican regime.
Yes its very interesting. Im learning a lot here but Ormiston there's no need to throw too many insults or swear to get you're point across, you're letting them get to you by swearing like a navvy.
Yes its very interesting. Im learning a lot here but Ormiston there's no need to throw too many insults or swear to get you're point across, you're letting them get to you by swearing like a navvy.
For what its worth that well known socialist Michael Bloomberg - Mayor of New York City and publishing billionaire - has now publicly endorsed Obama and that left-wing rag The Economist has endorsed him as well.....
Key quote from The Economist.....
"Far from being the voice of fiscal prudence, Mr Romney wants to start with huge tax cuts (which will disproportionately favour the wealthy), while dramatically increasing defence spending.
"Together those measures would add $7 trillion to the ten-year deficit. He would balance the books through eliminating loopholes (a good idea, but he will not specify which ones) and through savage cuts to programmes that help America’s poor (a bad idea, which will increase inequality still further).
"At least Mr Obama, although he distanced himself from Bowles-Simpson, has made it clear that any long-term solution has to involve both entitlement reform and tax rises.
"Mr Romney is still in the cloud-cuckoo-land of thinking you can do it entirely through spending cuts: the Republican even rejected a ratio of ten parts spending cuts to one part tax rises.
"Backing business is important, but getting the macroeconomics right matters far more."
What that says, in a nutshell, is that Mitt Romney is a unequivocally shameless liar.
Michael Bloomberg ... billionaire socialist? In most parts of America that would be an oxymoron. The belief from the far right in the U.S. is that all socialists are really communists. They also wouldn't have a clue of what is an oxymoron. We should all be billionaire socialists!
Michael Bloomberg ... billionaire socialist? In most parts of America that would be an oxymoron. The belief from the far right in the U.S. is that all socialists are really communists. They also wouldn't have a clue of what is an oxymoron. We should all be billionaire socialists!
Believe it or not the right wing nutters are calling him a 'Socialist' for supporting Obama - its beyond parody now, isn't it?
Comments
"If it weren't for the two wars and the economy cratering I would not be here in the first place."
But don't forget that he has continued one war and only ended the other after an agreement was signed by Bash (sic) and the Iraqis to have complete withdrawal of troops when they did. Obomba (sic) and his allies has also destroyed Libya and are trying to do so in other countries. He has also spent more in four years than the other stooge in 8. No attempts at deficit reduction, etc etc. more bombs etc etc. Doesnt matter who's in p[ower, the finger pointing is for the sheeple, to make them feel better about their support of their parties.
Destroyed Libya? What are you talking about?
Obama has drawn a line in the sand, America cannot put boots on the ground to solve every problem in every country, it's just not possible - and it never was anyway.
The Obama "spending" is highly misleading, much of this spending is actually money already committed by Bush for Afghan/Iraq wars which Obama had no choice but to pursue.
Those slating Obama should tread carefully, I take it you will all be backing Labour over the Tories in 2015 for the same reasons, not turning the economy around in four years?
I am lifelong Labour but don't feel they have a rightful claim to retake power in 2015, for the same reasons the Republicans have no claim to the WH IN 2012.
Destroyed Libya? What are you talking about?
Obviously you've missed the recent invasion of Libya by our friends and allies at Nato..Libya was thriving under Gaddaffi having brought them from the poorest country on the planet in 1951 to achieve the highest standard of living in Africa . He used his oil money to build infrastructure for his people. Free housing for all, free electricty for all, free medical care for all and even paid for it abroad if not available in Libya. Free education brought the literacy rate up from less than one-fifth to 83%. Women were encouraged to get invovled in the workforce,teaching ,becoming doctors etc ,which is rare in Arab countries.
His greatest achievement of course was the great man made river,huge water reserves found underground in Libya. It was brought to the surface and pumped to almost all corners of Libya ,providing fresh water for all and they were irrigating parts of the desert to grow crops and make the country self sufficent. Our " friends and allies at Nato " destroyed these huge water pipes during their bombing campaigns. Tut tut. On July 1st 2011 1.7million Libyans turned out in Tripoli in defiance of Nato bombing The state owned central bank , with 0 % interest on all loans by law, was replaced during the bombing campaign by a western owned bank. Hmmm. Today Libya is in chaos and in the hands of crazed rebels. Well done Nato.The mistake Gaddaffi made was trying to introduce the gold Dinar into Africa . And selling his oil in a different currency other than the US dollar. As u may know the US dollar is the worlds reserve currency and if that were to change then the American economy goes down the tube. Its one of the US interests we hear so much about.
Anyway, When Obombas (sic) administration was hauled before congress to explain the invasion ,which didnt have congress approval , the Secretary of Defense said they didn't need it. No . They only need approval from the international community.You can watch that c-span clip on youtube if you like. Its not good.
As for Labour, hahaha never ever. Tories never ever. Its the same old sad arguments that people like to waste time over. I like politicians that want to end wars, invasions and occupations. . Don't be spoonfed propaganda.People are dying out there.
I heard last night someone asked him about your post and he broke away from Sandy response duties to say "Bollocks"
http://www.empowernetwork.com/cfbutler/blog/obama-romney-debate-why-the-timing-favors-romney/
....it's from Rahm Emanuel, formerly WH CoS and now Mayor of Chicago.
Thanks for the information on Libya BP. I think history from both perspectives is always interesting and helps form a view and develop the argument.
That's an excellent post, you obviously know your onions.
However, the truth is that if it were anyone else other than Obama in the WH then there would have been US troops deployed into Libya in big numbers, the Republicans were more than up for another middle-east adventure - just think how dangerous that would have been.
The Republicans would have been more than keen to get into Syria as well, they never want to miss a chance to kill a few brown skinned folks - if they're Muslim then what a bonus!
As for Gaddaffi, you make some very credible points in your post but the fact is that a dictator is a dictator is a dictator and for all of the good things you mention he had also inflicted huge cruelty on his people during his long reign - that's before mentioning the terrorist stuff.
Of course, there is also no denying the fact that the US tolerates dictators in plenty of other countries who are more amenable to US interests, Saudi Arabia, Jordan and most of Central Asia are good examples of this.
Moreover, Obama has also been remarkably restrained on Iran - which is why that odious scumbag Netanyahu has been openly campaigning for Romney and why AIPAC and people like Sheldon Adelson have spent tens of millions on trying to oust Obama from office.
Sure, Obama ain't perfect - nobody is and even Bill Clinton had to get the bombers out on a couple of occasions to get himself out of strife - but the alternative to Obama right now is too horrible to even think about.
Unemployment is lower now than it was when he took office, and moving downward. Next year's IMF-predicted US growth is higher than any other developed country. Compared with austerity-ridden Europe, where unemployment is still climbing, Obama's, Geithner's and Bernanke's leadership has been stellar. The US has never exported as much as now as a percentage of GDP ever. Given the catastrophe Obama walked into, and the froth-flecked obstructionism of his opposition, he's had a remarkably successful, historic first term. His long game also makes much of the progress promised durable only if he gets a second term.
My turn, What a load of Bollocks!
Why do you think Sheldon Adelson gave Newt Gingrich $30 million in campaign funding? Marital advice? He's now giving the same money to your mate Romney for the same reason, he wants an attack on Iran.
Mitt Romney has exactly the same foreign policy team as your beloved GW Bush - you remember him don't you ? - and pushes the Bush Doctrine just as enthusiastically, these people believe that the only way to secure America's future is by overwhelming military force.
Remind me again of how many wars Bush started in Muslim countries and of how well that all went?
The funniest thing is that the Chinese are currently taking over the world without firing a single shot, buying up huge chunks of the next growth engines of Africa and LATAM to cement their influence and there ain't a damn thing the US can do about it.
You neglected to mention the role Gaddafi played in the terrorist bombing of Pan Am Flight 103 which killed 259 people. Or the Berlin bomb which killed or injured over 230 people . Or his support for the IRA. Or his orders that any Libyan dissidents be executed.
A bit of research will show up that apparently Libya wasnt responsible for Pan-am 103. In fact a real can of worms opens up on that one. More Libyans were killed by retaliation bombing campaigns for the Berlin bomb but hey thats ok?
Was Libya guilty of these crimes or was the west always intent on pinning atrocities on anti-western regimes? WMD? We ve heard all the BS and we see it was all lies . But hey ,lets ignore that shall we?. Can we condone the Nato invasion of Libya and ignore the wests invasion of Iraq which killed hundreds and hundreds of thousands of innocent civilians? All based on what we now know were lies? Let's not get on our self righteous horse and point fingers at so called rogue regimes and ignore mass genocides committed by western regimes.
Dictatorships are not always great but the west had installed plenty of them to suit their foreign policy,funding them, arming them, etc. We all know that. Let us not shout from the treetops about the Syrian government when it is well reported and documented that the west is funding and arming al-qaeda rebels,among other listed terrorist organisations, in Syria . Let us not condeme Libyas support of the IRA unless we also condeme the wests support of terrorist groups in Syria and previously in Libya, groups that slaughter women and cut the throats of toddlers back to the spine, in order to justify an invasion of Syria. Should we be angry about these executions of dissidents when the US now can execute whomever they like whenever they like without any proof of guilt. That is scary stuff and its now written into the law over there. The point is they are all as bad as each other but rogue regimes kill thousands with their atrocities but western governments kill millions. iT NEEDS TO STOP.
Did you watch any of those fucking Republican arse clowns in their so called Primary debates? They were fucking itching to get into Libya with boots on the ground and desperately trying to outdo each other with who could be more aggressive towards Iran.
Ron Paul didn't. He talked common sense . Wanted to end the wars and protect American borders. He wanted to end the corruption and stand up for the rights and liberty of American citizens.Neither the republicans or democrats want that. They media laughed at him. The medias job is to dumb down the American people and spoon feed them propaganda. Its so obvious .
Can I ask, do you have an attachment to Libya in any way as you seem quite passionate on the subject.
Not digging you out or anything, just wondered.
Above has been mentioned the election timing, in terms of bad weather, the left's turnout lessens in bad weather (I still get confused between the labels democrats and republicans, so I'll use left and right. Having read Plato calling them republicans just confuses the hell out of me). I could be wrong but, my opinion is that the strength of feeling mitigates against any drop off in voter turnout, each side seems to be getting more and more impassioned fighting their respective corners QED. Add to that the expectations that no actual rebuilding will be started before the vote, whereas promises of help are being made now. The expectations of those promises will never be realised fully and any re/build conflict (as there are always differences of opinion) will not surface until well after the poll.
Despite the closeness of the opinion polls, I still think it's Obama's to lose, we will soon see.
http://www.bbc.co.uk/blogs/adamcurtis/2012/10/hes_behind_you.html
Ron Paul is batshit crazy on some issues but on foreign policy he tells it like it is and that makes the rest of the right-wing nutters absolutely mad as hell.
Remember, these are the people who booed a serving US army soldier - an Iraq War vet no less - because he was gay and wanted to be treated equally.
http://abcnews.go.com/blogs/politics/2011/09/debate-crowd-booed-gay-soldier/
Utter, utter scum.
What is basically happening with the Republicans is what happened to the UK Labour Party between 1979-1987 when they were overtaken by the extremists in the party and totally abandoned the centre ground.
Since Bush won in 2000 the Republicans have gone ever further to the right, even Bush senior would no longer fit in the party and neither would Reagan. Both raised taxes and that is simply not allowed under Grover Norquist's Republican regime.
Now carry on.
X
Key quote from The Economist.....
"Far from being the voice of fiscal prudence, Mr Romney wants to start with huge tax cuts (which will disproportionately favour the wealthy), while dramatically increasing defence spending.
"Together those measures would add $7 trillion to the ten-year deficit. He would balance the books through eliminating loopholes (a good idea, but he will not specify which ones) and through savage cuts to programmes that help America’s poor (a bad idea, which will increase inequality still further).
"At least Mr Obama, although he distanced himself from Bowles-Simpson, has made it clear that any long-term solution has to involve both entitlement reform and tax rises.
"Mr Romney is still in the cloud-cuckoo-land of thinking you can do it entirely through spending cuts: the Republican even rejected a ratio of ten parts spending cuts to one part tax rises.
"Backing business is important, but getting the macroeconomics right matters far more."
What that says, in a nutshell, is that Mitt Romney is a unequivocally shameless liar.
In most parts of America that would be an oxymoron. The belief from the far right in the U.S. is that all socialists are really communists. They also wouldn't have a clue of what is an oxymoron.
We should all be billionaire socialists!
The first is an enthusiastic endorsement of Obama:
http://nymag.com/daily/intel/2012/10/barack-obama-is-a-great-president-yes-great.html
I, like many with him, are not quite as enthusiastic this time around.
The second is the case against Romney. It gives an explanation that I most subscribe to:
http://nymag.com/daily/intel/2012/10/case-against-romney.html
I think it paints a truer overall picture of Romney than any other article that I've come across.
Both articles are very well written, IMO.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?feature=endscreen&v=Xwh8kWuire8&NR=1
Who's the best............You decide