No popular names in the debate in South Carolina, except for Ross Perot wannabe Ron Paul.

My reaction to that group (Pawlenty looked dead, Santorum uptight)....

Santorum? Uptight? Nooooooo. Not him.

I'm obviously almost definitely going to vote for Obama, but I would like to see someone compelling on the GOP's ticket. I definitely believe that rigorous and intelligent opposition is one of the hallmarks of a stable and healthy republic. That of course excludes Newt, Palin and Huckabee, among many others.

Is Mitch Daniels even a remote possibility? He's pretty weenie-ish I think, and I certainly do not agree with his positions on public health, but from what I've read he is principled and restrained.

How many times did Santorum bring man on dog sex for no apparent reason?

Rick Santorum

Thank God for Dan Savage since he got that one off the ground.

I actually like Herman Cain, but from previous interviews he did on the economy. The guy was terrible last night though. When they ask you a question about legalizing marijuana in the US and you start off with "Well....i think the American people know what kind of president they want..." and so on and so far taking forever just to answer a stupid question, you're not going anywhere.

You're economically smart Cain, but you are no politician........at least, federal. Try state first.

So, just to make it official...

Ron Paul is running.
Mitt Romney is running.
Newt Gingrich is running.

Awaiting word on Huckabee this weekend.

Not sure why Paul would want to run again. He had his "cult-like" support, but it ended fairly quickly.

Gingrich, i like his commentary from time to time, but i'm not sure how he thinks that he can win the nomination, or even the presidency. Too many skeletons in his closet.

Huckabee would disappoint me if he runs. It would mean that he took advantage of the show as a campaign project. I hope he doesn't. I like him as a person, and probably as a state governor, but it's tough to see him as a president.

Romney scares me a little because he seems to be the most electable. Which is to say he's not a complete nutter and he was elected Governor of Massachusetts, a fairly liberal state. That said, I understand that one thing that came out during his tenure as governor is the thing that apparently sunk his campaign in 2008 -- He is supposedly deeply unlikeable on a personal level. All of the other Republican candidates apparently grew to hate him. It's also the reason he was never in the running for VP. I think the press didn't shine to him either which resulted in unfavorable coverage.

Huckabee scares me because he comes off as reasonable but he is apparently a nutter. Okay, that's perhaps unfair. He is extremely, extremely religious such that his core beliefs are far, far from the center.

I agree with your assessments of Paul and Gingrich.

Romney is a hit or miss. Either he gets the support from not just Republicans casting anti-Obama votes, but also from the independents and moderate democrats, or he gets the anti-Obama votes only, and the majority of the rest goes to Obama.

The polls give him the edge, with Huckabee. The two together would be a strong force.

The Huck is very religious, but i don't think he will do too much on social issues as he will most likely inherit the current economy and the obligation of paying attention to national security and the Mid-East. I see Huckabee as a softie version of Bush.

It will be neck and neck between Huck and Mitt. If Huck runs anyway. We don't know yet. Looks like he will..., but not 100% sure. I'm siding with Romney as i did in 08. I like Huck too, but i really think this country needs a transitional executive office that will work with both parties. This country could benefit from leaving the extreme right and left it dealt with for the past 10 years or so.

It's funny that we're talking about Romney right now, because he's already started to try and distinguish his health care plan in Massachusetts from the AHCA, just last night in a speech in Michigan for example.

http://thecaucus.blogs.nytimes.com/2011/05...rss&emc=rss

Just heard a bit about this on NPR on the way home, and the general consensus, among conservatives and libs alike, is that he's already making misstatements. He didn't have to raise taxes to implement the MA plan, for example, but that's only because it was subsidized by the feds.

So, I think he really has an uphill battle. The AHCA, as we all know, is a huge, huge issue for mainstream conservatives and the Tea Party.

The more i watch Romney, the more i think that he's secretly a centrist type. Especially with the healthcare thing in mass, i could very easily see him pandering to the base to win the presidency but actually governing in a fairly balanced way. Kinda like Obama ran on reinventing the system and then played down the line once in office. Romney seems the most full of shit that way but the least frightening to me of all the republicans who could win.

Also he'd tear a whole in the country's ass by deregulating ala Reagan, being a super proCorporation type all. but thats a different conversation.

Romney is whatever he needs to be at a particular moment. He is a whore's whore. Clinton with an R next to his name.

Seeing as this seems to be the current Republican Congress's M.O. -- to focus on social issues after having been elected on the economy -- I find this hard to imagine.

If i were Romney i'd just say that yeah, i went with it... it was worth a shot at a state level, but not to even dream of it on a federal level. Also, i think that Romney's healthcare did not result in affecting Medicare, did not inflict on insurance prices controls, and it did not raise taxes on businesses. At the state level, for small government, it was a decent plan that was well approved. I mean, his bill was no more than 100 pages long and how long was Obama's? Two thousand something........but yeah, it didn't matter what was in it because we were told to see it after it was signed.

The MA health plan subsidized the purchasing of private health insurance by lower income people using funds that the state already used for paying the free-care (like Charity Care) at hospitals. What he pretty much did was shifting funds that were issued to hospitals as reimbursements for the free-care and to the people so that they could purchase an insurance plan by themselves. Obamacare actually finances its subsidyby increasing taxes and eventual defunding in the Medicare program.

Actually i remember reading that the MA legislature declined his proposal of not fining employers that did not acquire a healthcare coverage. I think Romney worked this plan out with liberals and found a middle ground.

I mean, the current management of the MA healthcare plan under the current serving governor also makes a difference in the current results. Romney was allowed to pursue such a plan in the first place because he managed to balance the budget and actually have a surplus. We haven't been close at all at the federal level.

I think Mitt can do better in explaining his "Romneycare". Obviously there are a lot of similarities, but the situations are very different. It was an state issue that as governor, leader, of the state had to address. And, he did because he could have and had a majority backing it up. It wasn't an ideological agenda, such as that of Obama and Biden, and Pelosi, and Reid. It was a process that even newly elected Scott Brown, senator from MA, approved of. Obamacare was not a process. It did not hold a majority backing it up. This country has been on the brink of bankruptcy the past few years. If this country had anything close to a balanced budget, then Obamacare would not be such a scandalous issue. But it was constantly pushed, constantly fought over..... it was doubted by elected democratic officials, and a couple of them were pretty much bribed into supporting it. It had to be watered down because it lacked the support.

The situations of the MA plan and Obamacare are greatly different.

I don't think he will take immediate action to push forth a law making something like....... abortions illegal. I am not saying he wouldn't do it, but it would be poor leadership on his part to focus on his conservative social agendas rather than the economy, the housing market, and national security. He would be like Obama but on the opposite side of political ideologies.

I don't think we need that now. I truly believe we need someone like Romney who has a good resume, has gone through excellent schooling, has a record of balancing a state's budget, with the addition of salvaging the Olympics in Salt Lake in little time considering what he had to do, and he managed to do well because he was able to communicate with democrats and republicans. I think he'd be a good one-term president. If he loses to Obama, then there is no doubt in my mind that this country will elect a Republican in 2016 and having talked to certain people i would put my money on Jeb Bush, believe it or not.

Wait, what? How was Obama pushing socially liberal agendas rather than focusing on the issues?

He passed healthcare, financial reform, and the stimulus. His three top goals that he campaigned on. How is that taking immediate action to push ideological goals? Banning abortion and passing healthcare are completely different. It would be like if Obama's first actions were to legalize gay marriage and pot.

Andrew Sullivan says another problem Romney faces in winning the nomination is that the GOP is pretty much run by the Southern delegates these days so a candidate from the NorthEast is almost out before he even runs:

http://andrewsullivan.thedailybeast.com/20...r-handicap.html

Meanwhile, Ron Paul would abolish FEMA and would have voted against the 1964 Civil Rights Act.

Fema , first:

http://thinkprogress.org/2011/05/13/ron-paul-abolish-fema/



Yeah, people who do dumb things like earthquakes and tornados. Why should those people in the central part of the US have to pay for those idiots who chose to live in New Orleans? For that matter, why shlould people in New York have to pay to help anyone dumb enough to live in the path of a tornado?

On Civil Rights:

http://thehill.com/blogs/blog-briefing-roo...ivil-rights-act

You know, i like Ron Paul for the most part. I appreciate his honesty and his desire to shake up the system, but he lives in some
bullshit 1950's leave it to beaver dream where everyone has a yard, a big o'l car and plenty of starched shirts.

I understand his desire to get the government out of everyday bureaucracy but i'm terrified of his literal belief that we should have no government.
Something strikes me as fairly odd when people who are against a certain system run in order to lead that system through "better times" by setting the house on fire.

He wouldn't be able to pass half the stuff he talks about but sometimes i wonder how that battle would play out. maybe in the debate against it, better ideas might come out.

..probably he'd just rollback the kind of big government programs that keep things like strychnine out of our ham. Cause, you know.. the government shouldn't be in our business. We can all pretend to be mini-countries.

That's well said Fuzz, and how I feel about him. I respect him, because unlike a lot of other candidates on either side I think he's principled, deliberate, calm, and consistent, but some of his ideas are so extreme on the libertarian spectrum that I could never get behind him.

Gitmo and universal healthcare. The stimulus did not have much support, but he passed it anyway, and he planned on doing another one (smaller). Banning off-shore drilling, though not entirely as it would have probably made oil prices worse by now. Cap and trade. He actually did stop Bush's ban on foreign establishments that allow abortions.

So yeah.... he entered office and went with his liberal agendas of overspending, increasing government, and a move on a social issue.

There is nothing funnier than hearing the GOP protesting larger deficits and expansion of government.

Healthcare wasn't some ideological thing. Healthcare costs are an enormous problem. He created what he thinks is a solution.

Don't know where you are getting your facts about the stimulus not being supported. http://www.gallup.com/poll/114577/stimulus...ges-higher.aspx
http://www.cbsnews.com/stories/2009/02/05/...in4778192.shtml

Cap and Trade is an energy policy.

The only thing you mentioned that is at all ideological was closing Gitmo. The whole abortion thing is just politics. Reagan implemented it, Clinton immediately cancelled it, Bush immediately implemented it, Obama immediately cancelled it. It is a non story. Whatever party is in office does it.

Apparently in your mind anything Obama does is ideology driven because he has liberal ideals. If you think cap and trade and healthcare is just a liberal ideologue being partisan, then I don't know what to say. There is a big difference between having policies that are liberal/conservative and being an ideologue.

Supporting supply side economics doesn't make you an ideologue. Supporting Keynsian economics doesn't make you an ideologue. Creating a campaign around "family values" does. There is a big difference between having an opinion on something, and being ideology drive.

If Obama passing laws that go with a particular ideology make him ideology driven, then there is literally not a single politician who isn't.

Huckabee is not running.

Universal healthcare, the way Obama wanted it, was absolutely ideological as it was a blueprint of a socialist government's plan. He created something that is projected to increase costs and in the end signed a bill that was criticized by even the left as being too ineffective. We're not even 100% fully aware of what is in this bill because 2,000 pages of print is a joke in the first place.

The public opinion poll you posted was taken very early on, but if you followed your CBS link correctly it actually shows that opinion of the stimulus plan was trending towards disapproval. It even hit 40% around April and May of 2009. If you also do a search on a year after the stimulus plan you will see a majority of polls showing a negative reaction towards it as it pretty much failed considering the amount of money put into it.

Cap and trade is an energy policy, yes, and it can be good if activated at the right time. Now is not the right time during an economic crisis. Since energy is an inelastic good, the prices could go up if the companies do not reach government demand. This could very well be on utility companies. With energy prices up, the prices on food and goods expected to go up, and a 9% unemployment rate that we know of, it's not the time to push this agenda. We're not facing a prosperous era, and such a change means forced investments, costs for companies to obtain the right technology for government requirement. This is also a policy that most Americans don't have much interest in because one it's not a primary concern, not in this economy, and two it is a pathway to rising costs. Despite the risks that cap and trade may impose, this has not been a popular agenda.

And the abortion thing....it's a back and forth thing, but it is an ideological action taken, by both sides. The reply was to the previous statement made that Obama did nothing involving abortion. He did.

Like i said, healthcare reform the way Obama planned it to be was a liberal agenda. Healthcare reform can be done, but not the way Obama dreamed it to be. There are liberal/conservative agendas on both a social and non-social matter. Just because social issues are not involved, it doesn't mean that there isn't an ideology towards agendas covering other aspects.

I was really happy that he said it. Took forever. The program was pretty good (it's an okay show, but can get very boring, but from time to time it's okay), and the episode was set up that it seemed like he was going to run. He had a segment on Obama, then a mini segment on Romney (top competitor), then one with Mario Lopez (family values, and hispanic audience), then the coverage on the floods (domestic concern), and then Ted Nugent (conservative base) and they sang Cat Scratch Fever, which was cool. Then he had a final short speech and he made it sound like he was going to run, but then confirmed he would not run.

I'd like to say I can never vote for a party who puts the needs of millionaires and corporations above the needs of the majority of citizens, and even at their expense, but then I'd have no one to vote for.

Seriously guys, it doesn't matter at all. Politics is fucked beyond repair in this country and it'll take something drastic like voting in a third party candidate to start the ball rolling towards recovery, which will not be happening soon. If GOP wins, everything says the same except Dems will be doing all the complaining instead of Repubs, and the "hot" issues will shift slightly.

Of course, I forgot that Obama was a socialist who is trying a complete and total remodeling of our country. How stupid of me. Don't forget though that at the time the CBO was saying how healthcare reform would lower the deficit.

I know people have discussed endlessly on this board how now is exactly the right time for energy reform in order to transform our economy to be the leader in the field. That argument has been played out.

Also, your argument about the stimulus being unpopular is mad. Obama passed the stimulus, and it was popular. As the months went on, most people didn't see much benefit in their day to day life (ignoring the fact that it did save/create millions of jobs Link) they decided it wasn't a good idea. How silly of Obama, not being able to see into the future. What a putz! If only he had known that people in the future would decide they didn't agree with it!

You are basing your argument that Obama was/is ideology driven on the fact that he passed healthcare that you consider to be socialist, and repealed an abortion law, which every president prior to him had done as well (based on their party affiliation). You ignore the fact that he extended tax cuts, scaled back financial reform and health care reform (to the point that they ignore the original intent) in order to garner support from conservatives/blue dogs. He has been pretty goddamn pragmatic.

Obama is pretty much a socialist, and universal healthcare is an act of remodeling part of the country's policies. I wouldn't go as far as saying he wants to completely change this country to his liking, also because he can't. It takes years and a lot of power within those years to do so, which is what Europe gives to its politicians. Too much time, too much power to influence, hence why you see long "regimes" there. Thankfully this country does not allow that.

The reason why the CBO made that statement is because they double counted in their report.

No argument was played out from the alternative energy discussions and we didn't necessarily touch on the cap and trade policy itself, but more like oil prices, and automobiles.

People at first liked the stimulus because Obama, and the leaders of the Dems, presented it as a plan to quickly solve issues. However, it actually DID fail as proven by the following facts:



Also this link will show you more facts and data as to how the stimulus did not work.

The problem with Factcheck.org is that it is basically an Obamabot because the very leftist Kathleen Jamieson runs it behind the Annenberg Public Policy Center (well connected with Obama), which controls Factcheck.org.

He extended the Bush Tax Cuts because he had to. He actually battled not to, but even his economic advisor, and a couple of them "resigned" afterwards, said it had to be done. He had to scale back on his universal healthcare plan because he did not have enough support from his own party in the first place.

You're giving the guy full credit as if he proposed these decisions trying to be bipartisan. Not even close.

You should be thanking Obama. Without extending the tax cuts you wouldn't have nearly as much deficit to be pissed off about.

Oh wait...you're serious. Why don't you ask real-life socialists what they think about Obama (or google it)?



+1. Obama's whole MO is getting something for the democrats by giving something to the republicans. He is the very picture of bipartisan compromise. He gives an inch to get an inch, but when you give the republicans an inch they take a mile.

He was a member of the New Party, a socialist party. He believes in distribution of wealth, as he stated himself. Yeah...he is pretty much a socialist if you ask someone whose family decided to flee from a socialist government. (That'd be me).

Oh, and he had no choice but to give in also because his own party told him as well on certain bills passed. I don't get this sudden thought that Obama has worked down the middle. The guy has painted his administration with leftist czars that don't need to be approved. If it wasn't for a good number of smart democrats telling him that his universal healthcare plan was disastrous, he would have passed it. The only thing that he did prior to the November elections that Republicans wanted him to do was extend the Bush tax cuts, which he didn't want in the first place, but was well advised by his own economy think tank to go with it. Post November elections the budget slash deal was fair enough. His stimulus bill had minimal support from the Republican party, but he went with it anyway.

Please.... all the sudden the guy is painted as a centrist. That is the joke of the year.

The blueprint for it is the system currently in place in the Commonwealth of Massachusetts. Mitt Romney signed that law.

Believing in the distribution of wealth isn't a bad thing. I mean, the figure is something ridiculous like 1% of the population holding 90% of the wealth, so is wanting to break that up really so bad?

Also, you're drawing the conclusion that all socialism is bad based on how a corrupt government took advantage of it. As an ideal, it has a lot of good aspects, and even implementing parts of that here could be a huge benefit.

Right...

Here we go again. Time for the Socialist tag to be reintroduced for the umpteenth time. I defy the Rights definition of why Obama is a Socialist. I grow tired and weary of a title placed on a President who has done NOTHING in his time as President that makes him a Socialist. There is no common ownership of industry or business in the US. There is no equal class structure.

Yes, he nationalized the banks as a public utility.

He implemented Socialized medicine making health care professionals employees a government-run entity

Despite the last 2.5 years continuance of the greatest transfer of public wealth into the private sector. If he were a socialist he would take the companies over. Not guarantee loans to help them stay solvent.

Of course he recalled every one of America's troops from abroad

Ask Bernie Sanders, a Socialist how much of a Socialist Obama is.

And then of course we can also take this quote from Ron Paul: “In the technical sense, in the economic definition, he is not a socialist, He’s a corporatist. He takes care of corporations and corporations take over and run the country.”

The term "Socialist" was pulled from a Republican playbook in an effort to drum fear from the American people. As American's have an innate fear of the Left-wing Marxist-Leninist Soviet Union style of government opposed during the cold-war. It was very easy to paint the President red (ironically the color of the GOP) and tell the people that he is going to turn the country into a Socialist enterprise and take your freedoms away. And then they could then advocate deregulation and lift the chains off of America's economic engine and we will all thrive. After all, that is what we do in the land of the free and the home of the brave.

Because you come from Italy does not give you carte blanche to go down a list and pen things socialist.

Stop throwing around "Socialism" and elevate the conversation. Please... It makes your logic look retarded and you ain't that stupid.

This whole conversation is just laughable. Pulling the Obama is a socialist card is just so silly.

Have you seen his economic advisory team?

Larry Summers, Tim Geithner, Mark Patterson, Lewis Sachs, Gary Gensler, Mary Shapirto etc.

These guys were all in the heart of Wall Street, and had actions that led to the financial crisis. Calling his appointments "leftists" is just silly when you look at who he has around him. He has not gone nearly far enough in dealing with Wall Street.

You're also someone who is so far to the right that anyone to the left of Ronald Reagan is a socialist. And the New Party, like so many American left groups, wanted more fairness/social justice within a capitalist framework. It's a moot point, however, since Obama was never a member of said party.

What socialist government did your family flee from, and what similarities do you see between that government and Obama's policies?



What do you mean, "all of the sudden"? Left-wing critics of Obama have been calling him a centrist since before the election. I think the fact that you dislike him and I dislike him is a testament to his frustratingly bipartisan, centrist presidency.

The watered down version of Obamacare is more similar to Romneycare, but Obama had the near exact government healthcare plan (originally) to that of European countries that are run on a socialist platform. I think if Italy would have one province, like Lazio, with such a plan and not the other provinces, there would be havoc.

There already is a distribution of wealth as government use tax dollars to fun programs for the poor. We use billions of dollars every year on Charity Care. That is already distribution of wealth, and i am ok with that. It's the expansion of it that i am against.

As for socialism.... i think a lot of political ideologies have benefits. Even communism. The flaw with these political ideologies is that they are too easy to manipulate for human beings. Lula's administration from Brazil did a very good job (despite him almost being illiterate), but socialism was well used and well suited for that developing country. For a developed country, though, i don't think socialism works. It poorly affects citizens, i think it slows down growth, and it limits freedom. That's my point of view on it.

I think Obama is a believer in socialism. There are too many indications on his personal behalf that show he is a believer in socialism. Does it mean that he will act like one? No. I am not saying that the guy will run the country as a socialist. Like i said, thankfully he can't. Not only are there checks and balances in this country that block such, but there is too much money in this country to act as a socialist. My mom when being pessimistic on Obama winning said "oh great, we leave socialist Italy only to live in socialist US". Now my mom is a very intelligent lady, two phds, but she doesn't have much knowledge on the government system here in the US, also because she has little interest in politics. But i told her that it wouldn't be the case. We have elections every two years. We have a judiciary system. We have a mixed economy that is deep into capitalism. We have too many banks and corporations that have an affect on politicians here.

I think that Hillary Clinton is a socialist believer as well, but would she ever be a socialist political leader in the US? Not a chance. Too much money from corporations and big companies that benefit her. Same with Obama. Obama has some deep connections with Wall Street as well. A true socialist would never, ever approve and pass the Bush tax cuts. While he didn't really approve of them, there was too much interest to pass them.

That's politics. You don't ever go too far in politics if you act as who you are. You have to follow what you will become and that is a person with too many conflict of interests, too many favors, too many back door deals, and so on, and all the sudden who you really are doesn't make your career. What you did makes your career.

So, when i say Obama is a socialist, yeah...i think he is. But i am not going to say that he will run this country on a complete socialist system. It can't happen, as i told my mom. Let the GOP us fear tactics of calling him a socialist and people with less knowledge think that he will turn this country into socialism. It's political warfare and both the Dems and Reps do it. I will never forget Ambassador Braun at my university telling an auditorium full of students, myself present, that "President Bush will do a draft to go to war as there already is a backdoor draft" (i'm paraphrasing). Political warfare, both sides do it.

So... Obama a socialist? Yes. Obama as president being socialist? Unlikely, and if so minimally on a bureaucratic level (such as increasing government involvement in areas like healthcare).

Obama's important administration members, as you mentioned, are not really leftists. However, the czars that he appointed, plus Sotomayor, are leftists.

I don't know how this isn't a communist country given that 96% of the planet are hardcore leftists.

Not really. I couldn't say enough good things on Democrat Evan Bayh. Moderate democrats don't really bother me. So, the assumption you make on me thinking that anyone to the left of Reagan is a socialist is flat out wrong. As for the New Party, look into this.

The socialist government in Italy was filled with "i sessantottini", translated "the 68's". In 1968 there was a big communist movement in Italy. Many of these activists entered politics as socialists and since we have a lot of parties in Italy, we have "allied" parties. The socialist parties and communists parties changed Italy a lot, for the worse, and we lost a lot of invested money. Everyone in Italy knows that the reason why the country does not, and will not, advance economically is that all of the money taken by the government go into the pockets of politicians, and go to the south. North Italy and South Italy are basically two different countries. The North is industrial, commercial, economically sound, advanced. The South is pretty much a third world country. Unemployment high, and the demand for social benefits from the government was high, and it will keep increasing. So, the government tends to take the money from the north, where we had investments in, and distributes it to the south. It got to the point that when we moved to NJ, we got lucky to get a mortgage.

Now....obviously it's not how the US works and will ever work. However, i have my very good reasons not to like socialists and be very critical of them. It's tough to compare Obama's policies to that of Italy's because the political systems are different. The main one was Obama original plan of universal healthcare, and his campaign on redistribution of wealth, which Biden even talked about to i forget who saying something along the lines of "it's time to give", with that freaky, evilish, smile of his. So...for me...anyone who says such and believes in such, and wants to act on them, it raises a red flag.

In terms of all of the sudden with Obama. I think i criticized him as spineless when he extended the Bush tax cuts. I was harsh, because i knew he did not want to, but he did it anyway. Yet, i think that the guy almost had no choice but to do it. I think Obama entered such a bad era in US history (in terms of modern day economy) that he is nearly handcuffed on what he really wanted to do because reality kicked in and he realized that himself. There is not much that he can do as a liberal president, because he can't. He had to pass a very watered down version of his healthcare reform, why? Because not even the non-liberal Democrats supported his original plan of universal healthcare.

Also there is general data believed to state that about 20% of Americans are liberal. If 80% of Americans are not liberal, then it's not easy to expect the president to do what possibly 80% of Americans may not like. (edit: very generally speaking) So, i don't think that Obama has wanted to do certain things that he's already done. My opinion is that he had to do them.

Yeah, but the other 4% have all the money. Sooo, there ya go.


Edit: I'm staying out of this thread from now on or else my head will asplode!

Could you specify this data then? Also on the whole redistribution of wealth the GOP does it too. Just because you behave like a dyslexic Robin Hood does not mean you aren't redistributing wealth.

There is a God!

(i'm kidding).

No look, so far it's been a good thread......although we shifted too much on talking about Obama and not the GOP candidates. If you want to chime in, please do. I know we will disagree, obviously, but so far my head did not asplode with the current replies. I have my opposing thoughts. You have thoughts that i oppose. I wouldn't call them idiotic or run out of patience with them. I already know where you stand politically so why would i say you are wrong and try to change your opinion on things? I wouldn't. As you wouldn't to me, so i hope, but it doesn't mean that no discussion can be had.

I think you are trying to use common denominators in order to support your argument. And it would be incorrect.

He is a Socialist but he wont run as a Socialist because the Constitution wont allow it? He is a Socialist but the banks have too much power to allow him to be? He is in the pockets of big business but he is a Socialist? Pffft... I say. We have thrown the Constitution to the side so many times and for so many reasons that I sometimes even question its relevance without serious modification. And the Socialist in the Democratic Leadership and Obama would work real hard to change it if that were true. Or if he were a Socialist he would just sidestep the Constitution like the rest of them do to further his agenda. And if he had no agenda then why the hell would he become President if he couldn't deliver on anything that he believed in? If he were a Socialist then why didn't he run as a Socialist? Obama the Socialist would at the minimum bring this to light during the election campaigns. Why didn't he pander Socialism to his minions when he was running? And why did the outgoing Liberal exiles that lost elections to the GOP last year not have screamed the same. There is no Socialist boogieman out there.

If he were a Socialist... never mind... believe what you will. If we state that the sky is blue you will still think it is green.

We live in some kind of strange cocktail of Elitism, and Corporate Oligarchy. Our two-party system that has frayed into its natural destined transformation into a black hole. We have fallen into the "Iron Law of Oligarchy."
Why? I wrote a college paper on this some years ago and that was when Clinton was in office and the economy was rocking. Did I know that we would be this far along this fast? How naive I was.

As power rises, so does bureaucracy. But as bureaucracy happens so does power. And as we know, power corrupts. More bureaucracy will then need to be created to try to stay efficient as the size increases. Things "like" the Patriot Act (the single biggest power grab in American history) are created and warrantless interference by the government are implemented for example, because decisions cannot be counted on by any pleural government bodies like Congress or the courts. The consolidation of power ends up in the hands of fewer and fewer. And those fewer will use their power to increase their own power.

In essence a snowball.

Now since 1980, each President has awarded themselves more and more power to dictate policy and sidestep the Constitution at will. Undeniable fact. Reagan deregulated and launched a deficit spending blank check-a-thon. President Obama is the single most powerful President the world has ever seen. If he wanted to implement Socialism as change we can believe in then he most certainly would have done so. And if not he would have attempted to do so. And yet he has done exactly nothing in terms of policy that has resulted in Socialism since becoming President. And neither has his party that had majorities in the Senate, House and the Executive. So he may be Darth Vader in his brain but he has never used death grips or lightning bolts from his fingers in order to get what he believes in. And what good would it be if you were a Dark Lord and you never got to be one? You got to have a grounding philosophy by which you philosophically wish to use in order to govern. If you don't believe in a philosophy then why in the hell would you become President to begin with if the Constitution has locks to prevent his ideology from emerging? Its nonsense what you are stating.

Sorry dude, pivot all you want but I ain't buying what you are selling and I don't think you would either if you thought it out.

And then as a Conservative, you see yourself as the anthesis of this? tsk...tsk...

What you describe as socialism is just the American spirit of liberalism/progressivism, the idea that the growth engendered by capitalism should benefit the many and not be concentrated in the hands of the few. This is not a radical and/or socialist idea. As Abraham Lincoln said in his first State of the Union Address,



Capitalism could not create the wealth it does without labor: that's as much Adam Smith as Karl Marx. Simply stating that, or believing that, does not make one a socialist; the conclusions one draws from such a belief does. Believing that maybe we should regulate and tax capital and set up laws to protect workers while still allowing capitalism the space it needs to grow does not make one a socialist. Not all government intervention into the economy is socialist; the bailouts and stimulus were definitely not socialist forms of intervention.

And what about Obama's educational policy? On education I'd say he is to the right of Bush. His policies are aimed at breaking the power of teacher unions in an effort to lower wages and increase insecurity while turning public schooling over to the free market through his advocacy of charter schools. His rhetoric is that of entrepreneurialism and market competition. You'd think a socialist, even a deep undercover in the closet socialist like Obama, would defend public education, but this is the area in which he is pushing his most radical neoliberal reforms.