Follow along with the video below to see how to install our site as a web app on your home screen.
Note: This feature currently requires accessing the site using the built-in Safari browser.
I see this thread, despite being in the "clean debate zone," has been rapidly trashed by right-wing and left-wing ideologues. That's the story of American politics today--an endless series of trolls and miscreants that have no concern whatever of the ramifications of their vociferous hatred and acidic words.
Having said that, this is my opinion--as a "successful" white guy, well-educated, physically fit, extremely healthy, and with an IQ that exceeds 160 (but is under 170):
I will vote for Obama because he is the lesser of two dangers. Romney is a radical theological leader. He is (always has been) a Mormon before he is an American. I would no sooner vote for a Mormon for the office of the Presidency as I would vote for a Muslim or a Jehovah's Witness. Religious zealots are the most dangerous people in the world.
Also, I have NO IDEA AT ALL what Romney would do. He has been on every side of every issue, according to political convenience. I do not trust his motives. I know he wants VERY BADLY to be president; his motives concern me greatly.
Keep in mind, please, that I do not defend Obama. He has disappointed in many ways, but I see him as the least dangerous alternative.
Radical theological leader? Religious zealot? I have no idea where you get these ideas from,
not once have heard or read any comment from him that might support such a position.
If you don't know what Romney will do then you haven't been paying attention.
It's good to see Obama winning as predicted.
It's good to see Obama winning as predicted.
It's not a prediction. It's a fixed goal. You have to understand the CFR to understand the winners and losers in this election. the losers btw are you and me.
I see this thread, despite being in the "clean debate zone," has been rapidly trashed by right-wing and left-wing ideologues. That's the story of American politics today--an endless series of trolls and miscreants that have no concern whatever of the ramifications of their vociferous hatred and acidic words.
Having said that, this is my opinion--as a "successful" white guy, well-educated, physically fit, extremely healthy, and with an IQ that exceeds 160 (but is under 170):
I will vote for Obama because he is the lesser of two dangers. Romney is a radical theological leader. He is (always has been) a Mormon before he is an American. I would no sooner vote for a Mormon for the office of the Presidency as I would vote for a Muslim or a Jehovah's Witness. Religious zealots are the most dangerous people in the world.
Also, I have NO IDEA AT ALL what Romney would do. He has been on every side of every issue, according to political convenience. I do not trust his motives. I know he wants VERY BADLY to be president; his motives concern me greatly.
Keep in mind, please, that I do not defend Obama. He has disappointed in many ways, but I see him as the least dangerous alternative.
Radical theological leader? Religious zealot? I have no idea where you get these ideas from, not once have heard or read any comment from him that might support such a position.
If you don't know what Romney will do then you haven't been paying attention.
It's good to see Obama winning as predicted.
As predicted? Or as orchestrated?
It's good to see Obama winning as predicted.
As predicted? Or as orchestrated?
[ame=http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=4JpPU-SwcbE]Obama tells Russian PM "After Election I Have More Flexibilty" 3/26/2012 - YouTube[/ame]
It's good to see Obama winning as predicted.
It's not a prediction. It's a fixed goal. You have to understand the CFR to understand the winners and losers in this election. the losers btw are you and me.
No, you're alone in this.
Obama is going to win; we'll get center-left justices on the Supreme Court, we'll wind down the war and not start any others. Those are wins.
Not if we get rid of Obama and his state department out of the White House. They're knocking themselves out weakening America as in Benghazi, and Americans are truly angry about it.It's not a prediction. It's a fixed goal. You have to understand the CFR to understand the winners and losers in this election. the losers btw are you and me.
No, you're alone in this.
Obama is going to win; we'll get center-left justices on the Supreme Court, we'll wind down the war and not start any others. Those are wins.
That's the pitch, but not the plan. No matter who wins...this is what's coming...
WW3 is on the horizon. America/Israeli-land will start it with Syria/Iran, in comes Russia and China, allies of Iran.
The American dream as you know it is about to become a real nightmare.
We may have a slight Civil War when Obama loses this election, but hopefully, it will be an opportunity to remind people about the peaceful transfer of leadership after an election.Rasmussen Poll: Romney Leads Obama in Swing States 50-46
Thursday, 25 Oct 2012 01:22 PM
Mitt Romney is now attracting support from 50 percent of voters nationwide, while President Obama earns the vote from 47 percent — an indication that the GOP candidate is holding his lead and momentum after the final debate earlier this week.
More importantly, a new Rasmussen poll shows the Republican leading Obama in the crucial swing states that will determine the election, according to new data released Thursday.
The swing states collectively hold 146 Electoral College votes and include Colorado, Florida, Iowa, Michigan, Nevada, New Hampshire, North Carolina, Ohio, Pennsylvania, Virginia and Wisconsin. Rasmussen Polls
Of course you're absolutely right. But to approach this problem of waste, inefficiency, and corruption will require aggressive Progressive leadership such as we could have expected from Dennis Kucinich or Mike Gravel, both of whom were eliminated from consideration early on. So it's clear that in the final analysis the condition of our government may be attributed to the ignorance and/or sheer stupidity of the voting public.I think we should get better gov't for what we're paying before we give 'em more money. The more we give 'em, the more they waste. Does it not make sense that we should not give 'em more until they've cleaned up their act and shown us that they need more to meet whatever obligations we have? Which BTW also needs to be scrubbed, the obligations we have oughta be looked at.
You're absolutely correct. I can't be one hundred percent sure that he is going to win, but I am nearly certain. It really depends on other things beyond our control. It sure will be fun to watch.It's good to see Obama winning as predicted.
As predicted? Or as orchestrated?
If orchestrated, it's very POORLY orchestrated.
Obama is losing.
RealClearPolitics - Opinion, News, Analysis, Videos and Polls
It's true the Republican Senate routinely blocks Obama's proposals. But it's also true Obama routinely accepts his defeats rather quietly. In fact he responds so passively to resistance from the Right that one cannot help but wonder if it's all part of an act, a veiled form of de facto cooperation. He makes gestures, the Republicans slap him down. He says little to nothing and he goes away. He gets credit for the gestures but nothing gets done. The Republicans win. And that is the story of the Obama presidency.The Republican Party has control of the Senate and every worthwhile bill was blocked by the Republicans. Obama’s plans will not get implemented as long as the Republicans remain so obstinate.
WASHINGTON The Obama administration has decided not to sign an international convention banning land mines.
State Department spokesman Ian Kelly said Tuesday that the administration recently completed a review and decided not to change the Bush-era policy.
"We decided that our land mine policy remains in effect," he said.
More than 150 countries have agreed to the Mine Ban Treaty's provisions to end the production, use, stockpiling and trade in mines. Besides the United States, holdouts include: China, India, Pakistan, Myanmar and Russia.
Sen. Patrick Leahy, D-Vt., criticized the State Department's review of the land mine policy as "cursory and halfhearted."
The senator described the decision to stand fast on the current policy as "a lost opportunity .... The United States took some of the earliest and most effective steps to restrict the use of land mines. We should be leading this effort, not sitting on the sidelines."
Hondurans are still suffering from the effects of the June 2009 military coup that overthrew the democratically elected government of President Manuel Zelaya. The coup has unleashed a wave of violence against political opposition, journalists, small farmers and others, with impunity for the security forces that have been implicated in these killings. This is exactly what those who opposed the coup regime and its consolidation of power with marred "elections" in November 2009 feared would happen.
On the wrong side of this fight was the Obama administration, which after some hesitation made some statements against the coup but went on do quite a bit to help the coup government succeed. Nearly three years and hundreds of political murders later, it seems that this administration is still on the side of repression and denial of Hondurans' basic human rights.
Nothing has made this clearer than the attempts of Democratic members of the US Congress to pressure the administration to change course. On 9 March, 94 members of the US House of Representatives sent a letter to Secretary of State Hillary Clinton asking her "to suspend US assistance to the Honduran military and police given the credible allegations of widespread, serious violations of human rights attributed to the security forces".
On Monday, the Obama administration waived sections of a law meant to prevent the recruitment of child soldiers in Africa, paving the way for new military cooperation with four countries with poor human rights records -- despite their use of underage troops.
"I hereby determine that it is in the national interest of the United States to waive the application to Chad, the Democratic Republic of the Congo, Sudan, and Yemen of the prohibition in section 404(a) of the [Child Service Prevention Act]," President Obama wrote in a memorandum to Secretary of State Hillary Clinton.
In 2008, President George W. Bush signed the law, which prohibits U.S. military education and training, foreign military financing, and other defense-related assistance to countries that actively recruit troops under the age of 18. Countries are designated as violators if the State Department's annual Trafficking in Persons report identifies them as recruiting child soldiers.
Employees of the US military contracting group Academi (formerly Xe, Blackwater USA and Blackwater Worldwide) are seen in new leaked video shooting their machine guns at random while driving through the streets of Baghdad, crashing into other cars and even running over a pedestrian without hesitation. Academi received a $250 million contract by the Obama administration to provide military services in Afghanistan.
