I agree that choosing a candidate to vote for and support is an important thing to many people (including myself, at times). However, IMO, I don't see much thoughtful and careful choosing involved when there are only TWO choices.. people are forced to confront the whole "lesser of two evils" bs and pretty much abandon some issues that they find important and relevant because those issues are not important in their candidate's eyes. This is unfortunate. ..and this is why, in conclusion, I should be president. Obviously.
The thing is, I'm not choosing between the lesser of two evils, I'm choosing a moral and ethical good by voting for Obama.
How can a guy who has not restored Habeas corpus and spreads terror in Pakistan be "a moral and ethical good"? Gee, I'd probably also vote for him if I were an American citizen but not with false illusions.
moral and ethical = Obama????????? I don't follow politics all that closely, but those are not two words i would use to describe Obama. Socialist, yes, MORAL and ETHICAL,, no.
What Obama should've done is come out with a wooden chair, set it in front of his podium, and walk off. When the empty chair debated Clint Eastwood it at least landed some pretty good jabs at Romney, and most of the press declared it the winner, or at least declared Eastwood the clear loser. An empty chair would've put Romney in the unenviable position of having to fill in both sides of an unscripted conversation and he would've been the one hemming and hawwing while he pretended Obama was replying to his points. Everyone would've come away from the debate thinking Romney had lost his marbles. I'm not sure how well Jim Leher would make Romney spend equal time pretending to listen to the chair, but if the press called foul it would paint Romney even more unfavorably. Eastwood was definitely on to something, but Obama's campaign advisors failed to capitalize on it.
Obama is like Clinton a Third Way social-democrat, i.e. a centrist. Big step from there to being an actual social democrat and a big step from social democracy to socialism. I agree though that there has been socialism in the US during the last decade, socialism for the military, socialism for Halliburton, socialism for Goldmann Sachs, socialism for the rich.
Sad but true. Obama's foreign policy has been horrifying--and not for the reasons Republicans think. Obama's carried on and intensified the Bush Doctrine. He's engaged in electronic warfare against Iran, violated Pakistan's territory any time he liked, assassinated American citizens without trial, and bullied our allies at every turn. Republicans should be in love with his foreign policy, because it's hard to distinguish from Bush's--apart from, I suppose, the fact that Obama's twist on it is much more ruthlessly deliberate.
Obama won the last election on the strength of his personality. If Romney is coming across with more charisma now, Obama is in trouble. As are we all. Since only about half of the people bother to vote, about three quarters will be mad about it.
I wish Romney hadn't won, but he did. He spanked President Obama and bad. He didn't have the facts on his side, but Mittens trounced in style and delivery and to most Americans it's style and delivery that determine the winner of a Presidential debate. Romney was full of his usual malarkey, but Obama looked like he didn't even want to be there on his wedding anniversary and it showed. Complete, bored autopilot all the way.
As utterly fascinating as it is to hear people repeatedly say they have no interest in politics or in voting for either of the candidates, how about not drowning out the thread with that stuff and leaving it to people who are actually interested and engaged about the election? [edit] This is obviously not directed at you Eddie, just a general comment to people in the thread.
I'm not certain you know what the term "socialist" actually means, if you're applying it to Obama. Of course, this is explained by your first sentence, where you stated that you don't follow politics all that closely. I'm not being snarky when I say this, but I would recommend you read up on the difference between political, social, and economic ideologies before calling someone a socialist.
I'm not so sure I'd worry about it, J. I suppose that the next thing he's going to tell us is that FDR and LBJ were both socialists because they supported (respectively) Social Security and Medicare/Medicaid