It's gonna be Obama vs Romney or Gingrich at the end of it.
The republican establishment hates Gingrich (after all nationally, (including all parties) his favorable is around 15-18% while his unfavorable is close to 48%) and they are tolerating Romney as the safe choice. Ron Paul, though does have a lot of people with the youth, but that's where his support pretty much ends and his national carry is about 10 - 15 percent overall, not enough to win an election. Gingrich is playing well to the extreme right in their hatred for anything not government and white :)
So for me, It's gonna be Obama. I like the dude anyway.
^ What happened was a save from collapse, not a rebirth of manufacturing jobs. I don't want to take away from his "save" of GM, but there are issues on how he did it like the old "bad" GM that is stuck with all the liabilities and suits, while the "new" GM starts afresh. The govt also hasn't gone after the GM on chevy volt fires that were happening unlike what happened to Toyota in the recent past.
They are interlinked in this case. Also, there was no new rebirth of the manufacturing sector in Obama's term. The only way that could possibly be done is through high tariffs on imported products and taxes on oversees profits of corporations, but you know as well how much chance of that is happening this year.
This thread is not about Pakistani Presidential Candidates!
But there is no harm looking at it from Pakistani perspective.
Funny that no one says anything when Zionists make and break US presidential candidates based on their policy towards Israel.
But there is no harm looking at it from Pakistani perspective.
Funny that no one says anything when Zionists make and break US presidential candidates based on their policy towards Israel.
Sure, no harm in thinking about Pakistan but that is after you get sincere leaders in Pakistan who don't actively sell out their own country.
Well i am not in America, otherwise I would have supported Ron Paul this time around.
I guess because the foreign policy resonates with you? I would like Obama to follow the principles of Ron Paul's foreign policy, but I can't see Paul as a President when he has crazy ideas about domestic issues. I did like what a commentator had said that Ron Paul would serve nicely as a VP.
Obamahas gone out of his way to appease Corporate America. His hiring ofo Larry Sumers and Geittner was not funny. His negotiations re: healt care was a joke. Everyone knows you start negotiating from your side, and move towards the other's position. He just started from the center and then moved 3/4 of the way towards the Right.
I will vote for Nader if he runs. Dont care if the dems lose - need to send a message that progressives cannot be treated like "battered wife syndrome".
Obama simply for his Foreign Policy stances. And him finally repealing "Don't ask don't tell" is something that should have happened 20 years ago. The rest of the domestic issues don't concern me at all so I really don't care.
I guess because the foreign policy resonates with you? I would like Obama to follow the principles of Ron Paul's foreign policy, but I can't see Paul as a President when he has crazy ideas about domestic issues. I did like what a commentator had said that Ron Paul would serve nicely as a VP.
yes because of his foreign policies, other than that i have not seen the domestic and economic policies.
Under pursuing is fine, and is a viable strategy, but the issue here is how in some cases, Obama has taken a more right wing stance than even the Republicans (detention act). The Bush tax cuts were also an extremely unpopular (not to mention hurtful) move. If Obama is truly trying to end bipartisanship in Washington by placating the Republicans, it's failing because the GOP does not want to compromise. Many Republicans have stated that the party's only goal is to get Obama out of office. So then the question becomes, why does he still pursue right wing (not centrist, see below) policies? Either he's a closet Republican, or more likely, he's bowing to someone, aka corporations.
what right wing policies is he pursuing? i'm not following.
[quote]
I also worry about the influence that lobbyists and corporations have on Washington. Take Helen Thomas for example. Saying that "the Jews should get out of Palestine" and (on the issue of where they should go) they should "go back to Europe" got her fired. Why? Because AIPAC said so. All of these politicians, presidents included, want employment after their terms, and corporations offer them lucrative "consultant" positions in return for favourable policies.
[/quote]
actually i think it's more simple than that. political correctness is all-pervasive in the US. referring to any ethnic/racial minority and saying "______ should go back to _____" is asking for trouble. and the fact that jews have diligently cultivated the concept of anti-semitism in american discourse for decades renders remarks about jews more controversial and punishment more likely.
[quote]
Until corporate/lobbying influence is ended, Washington is merely a playground for political posturing, where any significant changes will have to be approved by AIPAC, Wall Street, and the defense contractors.
[/quote]
that's true but there's nothing "right wing" about lobbyists.
^ You don't think that Obama's policy is right wing in case of drones or this new detention bill? I don't know if you watch Daily Show, but he does poke fun at obama at times, and one of those times was about how the obama of 2007 - 2008 was against rendition, but now his administration is fighting against ending it. Sure, it might make Obama look "strong" on foriegn policy and national security, but I won't applaud him if he is doing it wrong.
The comments prove no difference between so called liberal president or right wing president they both full on in attacking muslim lands so as a muslim i couldn't care less who is president.
Both sets liberal or right wing do as the corporations tell them to do. This elections is a illusion and big waste of time and money. You think things will change remember the last guy that said change change and change again look now not a ***** thing changed!
^ You don't think that Obama's policy is right wing in case of drones or this new detention bill? I don't know if you watch Daily Show, but he does poke fun at obama at times, and one of those times was about how the obama of 2007 - 2008 was against rendition, but now his administration is fighting against ending it. Sure, it might make Obama look "strong" on foriegn policy and national security, but I won't applaud him if he is doing it wrong.
to expect a reversal of all policies inconsistent with his own ideology is just unrealistic. in a time of war and pervasive terrorism, continuing existing security policies (consistent with the views of the security establishment) was not surprising. if you recall, he issued a signing statement in which he explicitly expressed his reservations and specifically declared that his administration would never indefinitely detain US citizens. with so many (much more important) issues on his plate that require taking significant political risk, to think he would invest scarce political capital in a post-9/11 world to fight that particular provision is just ridiculous.
keep in mind that barack obama never ran for president as a noam chomsky surrogate or some kind of pacifist dove. there is no space in american politics for a truly liberal or conservative president. that's why when primaries end, the nominees scramble to prove they aren't as liberal/conservative as they claimed they were during the primary. also keep in mind that the liberal-conservative distinctions fade quickly when it comes to foreign policy. there are a number of areas where both sides are more or less in sync...this applies to every country in the world.
obama has been ineffective at best and a disaster at worst. After that idiot dubya even a lump clay will do better but somehow obama managed to lose to the lump - I'd put obama between dubya and the lump.
I work hard for my money and if I want to give to less fortunate, I will. but when he tries to steal my money in the name additional tax, all he is doing is creating more business for his tax attorney friends.
Newt has no character at best and is an immoral crook at worst. On to his 3rd wife is his personal business but a guy who has broken his sacred vows with two other women, a guy who has benefitted in the millions in shaddow lobbies is simply not worthy material. He sometimes talks in ways that make you think "this is how Hitler must have started".
Santorum may be ready one day but right now he seems to be simply sparring partner for the others in the race.
Between Romney & Paul is a tough choice - because Paul is more principled but Romney is more capable. Paul is like a very good consultant advising the board - but never has had to take a gutsy decision as a CEO.
Therefore as things stand, I think I'll vote for Romeny