So I suppose the campaign leading to the polls on 6th November 2012 can be officially declared open....

Barack Obama has confirmed his intention to run for a second term today ....

Today, we are filing papers to launch our 2012 campaign.

We're doing this now because the politics we believe in does not start with expensive TV ads or extravaganzas, but with you -- with people organizing block-by-block, talking to neighbors, co-workers, and friends. And that kind of campaign takes time to build.

So even though I'm focused on the job you elected me to do, and the race may not reach full speed for a year or more, the work of laying the foundation for our campaign must start today.

We've always known that lasting change wouldn't come quickly or easily. It never does. But as my administration and folks across the country fight to protect the progress we've made -- and make more -- we also need to begin mobilizing for 2012, long before the time comes for me to begin campaigning in earnest.

Barack.

In order to understand American politics in the current era one needs to step back and see the big picture. That's hard for anyone to do because the forces at play are very large.

My take on the situation is this:
Elections in the US, and particularly the presidential election and congressional elections, are a grab for power by two major opposing forces. One force represents the interests of the public at large. The party that best embodies those interests, albeit imperfectly, is the Democratic party. The other force is that of the oligarchs, very wealthy, powerful and few. They find their representation in government with the Republican party. Over the last 30 years the oligarchs have been gaining more and more ground at the expense of the welfare of the general public.

The confluence of these forces was best seen recently in the battle for extension of the Bush tax cuts. That battle pitted tax breaks for the 2% wealthiest individuals in America (supported by the Republicans and opposed by the Democrats) against extending unemployment benefits for the longterm unemployed (supported by the Democrats and opposed by the Republicans). The contrast was glaring and the Republicans had no shame. They didn't have to, they're on a roll and winning.

An odd phenomenon has been that in the two years that Obama has been president he has drifted more and more to looking like a Republican. My speculation is that somebody has somebody by the balls. That was my speculation during the Bush presidency when Democrats were voting yes on some of the most heinous legislation put forth by the Republicans. And now, less than two years before the next presidential election, Obama is playing it safe and taking no risks. The man guy has no balls.

We don't know yet how the Republican primaries are going to shake out, but so far the Republican field just looks like a bunch of loopy clowns save maybe for Mitt Romney. I don't like him very much, but dishonest as he is, he is the only one so far who is this side of sanity. His major weakness is Romneycare on which Obamacare was modeled.

If anything the upcoming presidential race will be entertaining, we'll either be laughing or crying .

The United States is a very weird place (and very powerful).

Unfortunately it doesn't look like my dream of Billary vs Palin for 2012 is going to come true.

Lol democrats representing people's best interests! Typical New Yorker

The truth is neither cares about you. They're both basically the same.

Reps buy votes by giving people tax breaks, Dems buy votes by promising benefits, healthcare, higher minimum wage and free everything. Both have crony deals with large banks/military companies/oil companies. The gov't works for them. (When big corporations combine with autocratic government thats fascism. Thats what you have)



Unfortunately, you'll be crying both ways. You're broke, and none of the politicians want to do anything about it. The rest of the world will suffer too.

Ugh, already?

Interesting fact: Obamao wants to raise 1 BILLION USD in campaign contributions. (I love white collar language: Campaign contributions are BRIBES ffs)

In 1996 slick Willie Clinton raised 46 million.

2500% increase. This lobbying is getting expensive for the corporations

http://www.fec.gov/press/press2005/2005020.../presbigpic.pdf

No contest.

I did say:


And I did say that the Democrats embody those interests "imperfectly".
Motives are another matter. Regardless of how much (or how little) the Democrats care about the public at large they did give us Social Security (which the Republicans have been trying to kill since its inception in 1935), Medicare (which the Republicans have been trying to kill since its inception in 1965), regulation against corporate abuses, environmental protection, etc.

As much as the Democrats are bad guys too we can thank them for raising the standard of living of the average American beginning with the New Deal.

And I believe that I've said in these forums that I consider politicians (Democrat or Republican) to be the bottom of the barrel, lower than prostitutes. (I don't hold prostitutes in low regard, quite the contrary, but just want to place politicians in their relative place because they are prostitutes. At least the ladies of the night are honest about it.)

"Typical New Yorker"?

I'm a southerner and I know that the Democrats will look after me a helluva lot better than the Republicans.

Why do you want your gov't to steal money from one group of people to pay to "look after you"?

You can't name 1 good thing that government runs really well. You can't even say military/defense anymore.

Why would you want them running your economy and your life.

You could say that the "European-style socialist welfare state" (as the Republicans like to call it) compensates the disadvantaged for injustices in the system.


Of course not. They're all incompetent and corrupt. But the "socialist" state that the Democrats have built starting in the FDR era has substantially reduced the amount of poverty in this country, particularly among the elderly. The Republicans (and their benefactors) would love to roll the clock back to pre-New Deal when old age meant certain dire poverty for most. Back then you couldn't afford to retire, a phenomenon that is now creeping back into American life.


To protect you from the oligarchs pushing the country toward a feudal-like society.

Please close this thread until next year.

To lighten the mood, let us see what the Republican's have so far....

Donald Trump, birther, anti-gay, believer of Plutocracy..

Newt Gingrich, adulter (twice), married thrice, anti-gay, family advocate...

Mike Huckabee, Christian Nation, stoically anti-gay theocrat...

Michelle Bachmann, stoically anti-gay theocrat, follower of McCarthism....

Tim Pawlenty, stoically anti-gay, far right Tea Party conservative....

Sarah Palin, anti-gay, other views depend on her mood, subject to change at any time...

Mitt Romney?

Haven't heard much from him, he's been keeping a low profile, however.....

Theocrat, anti-gay staunch Mormon, Western White House will probably be the temple in Utah where he will be told how to run the country by his elders...

These are the best the Republicans can throw out there?

They're all incompetent corrupt scum on both sides.

Ron Paul is your only hope.

Ron Paul is an ass.

Great argument. I think you're just an ignorant biggot and know nothing about him. (Or if you do, you're someone who freeloads off the government and fears losing those benefits.)

Paul is impeccably principled. He has a consistant voting track record and has over 30 years never sold out. He defends the constitution and the rights of the people.

If standing for liberty and justice makes someone an ass, then I'm an ass too.

Remember where you came from. Your ancestors fled tyrannical british empire or fought hard for emancipation, freedom from slavery and equality infront of the law.

What you're doing now is handing all your freedoms to a banking cartel controlled fascist tyranny.

Sorry to be so blunt, but if anyone thinks this topic is the least bit interesting to more than a small minority of people living in the UK, they are sadly mistaken.

No one asked you.
But you will care soon because where the US goes the UKSSR follows, and the direction the US is on sucks.

The oligarchists like it.

Who knew Sarah Palin posted on FMF?

Oh I thought that was Glenn Beck in disguise.

I used to be blissfully ignorant too, I miss those days. Feels nice to know whats coming and be prepared for it though.

Look at Greece, Ireland, today Portugal (next Spain, Italy or Belgium), those riots are coming to UK/USA too.
The only reason the UK/USA gov'ts haven't had bailouts yet is because they can PRINT THEIR OWN MONEY OUT OF THIN AIR.

Can't you see the price of everything measured in dollars or pounds rise?? More printed money = higher prices.

Eventually the people will lose confidence in the £ and US$ and zimbabwe inflation will ensue. Food riots here we come.

Jesus Christ, jazze, you sound insane! Every post of yours is pretty much the same old hatred churned out over and over and over again...

Lament not. You're still there.

Are you sure you're not Glenn Beck in disguise stalking here on fmf?

I was thinking the same thing.

Normalcy bias.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Normalcy_bias

That's ok. Just realize that some of us think that you're a bit off your rocker.
Nothing wrong with your point of view per se (we have many right-wing nutjobs in this country), it's more about how it comes across.
I've thought of blocking your posts they're so crazy, but I'll hold off for now. (And I've never blocked anyone.)

Except we can actually generate profits with the products we produce/market. We produce our own food, so it's highly unlikely we'll be rioting over it. The governments that collapse are incapable of supporting their citizens because they can't produce enough of the products people require to live. Inflation's been happening since money came about. Things get more expensive, wages rise, and it more or less balances out (or a nifty World War comes along). It's not a good thing, but it's hardly a novelty.

Our debt's a much higher concern to me, which nobody seems too eager to solve. Ron Paul's got absolutely sound ideas (financially and foreign-policy-wise) that I personally follow (not living beyond my means, saving for things I really want), but unfortunately those ideas will never gain the support of enough people to make him electable to a higher office.

I find it suspicious that the national debt (and the deficits causing it) have only recently become a hot point. I've been concerned about it for 20 years, yet never a peep about it from Washington or the political right (notably during the Bush administration when the national debt rose from $4 trillion to almost $10 trillion).
Yes, Newt Gingrich and his "Contract with America" skwakked about it back then, but the truth is that the Republicans never were interested in balancing the budget then and now. Part of the problem is that politicians in Washington have been, almost without exception, irresponsible in their desire to funnel money to their districts and to their lobbying benefactors than to care about fiscal prudence. Even today. (Don't believe what they say.)

On Tuesday, Paul Ryan (Wisconsin), House Republican chairman of the House Budget Committee released the House Republican budget blueprint. Compared to current projections, spending on government programs would be cut by $4.3 trillion over 10 years, while tax revenues would go down by $4.2 trillion. So spending would be eviscerated, mainly to make room for continued tax cuts (for the wealthy), not to balance the budget.

Last month when the Wisconsin Senate's Republican majority put up for a vote Republican governor Scott Walker's union-busting budget, it was not about cutting the budget deficit as claimed. After all, the unions had already agreed to the spending cuts for pensions, benefits, etc. Rather, it was about weakening unions' financial clout with the 2012 presidential election in view. The billionaire Koch brothers were behind that fiasco with a $1 million political contribution. After all, the same legislation had in it some goodies, e.g. selling off some government energy assets at fire sale prices which the Kochs are interested in buying. (That's how things work in this country.)

So you see, all this talk about cutting the budget deficit is never really about cutting the budget deficit. It's just a cover.

True, the US has very serious deficit/debt problems that have to be addressed. But that's not what the current debate is really about. Rather, the Republican right is seizing the opportunity to get rid of reviled programs including education improvements, health care reform and infrastructure rebuilding. That includes gettting rid of the despised Medicare (for seniors) and Medicaid (for the poor) programs. Despite their loud talk the Republicans have never been fiscally prudent and have never been interested in reducing the deficit/debt. Rather they just want to re-arrange things to favor their benefactors (i.e. smaller government with smaller taxes for the rich as put forth by Paul Ryan's budget proposal).

The Tea Party is another story. I don't like them, but at least they believe what they say. The problem is that they are so politically naive that their insistence on slashing the budget without regard to the consequences is a recipe for disaster. And that includes Ron Paul. The words may sound good, but these folks are going to lead America down the sewer.

Wow, I never knew he was elected to play golf.

The worrying thing is that the fascist presidents tend to get re-elected, so four more years isn't out of the question.

Are you talking about Dwight Eisenhower?


Richard Nixon
Ronald Reagan
George W. Bush

Yes the USA produces alot of food. The problem is if the dollar loses alot of value, why would a farmer accept worthless dollars for his produce?
He would raise prices or just export it to people who have a more valuable currency/commodity to trade.

I think there will be plenty of food, but too expensive for most to afford. Hence the already 45million americans on food stamps!



Since you're from Minnesota, what about Jesse Ventura for prez? he's cool lol

(btw i heard Glenn Beck quit fox?)

It's not clear who quit whom.
Although he still has high ratings on Fox they are dropping. Plus Fox was getting very frustrated with his bizzarre pronouncements. He does come across as a bit unhinged and a paranoid-messianic rodeo clown with a cult-like following.

Has membership of FMF forums suddenly become limited to UK residents???? Or do forum topics have to have the interest of more than a small minority of UK resident board members? Sorry, I missed those announcements from Sir Ladsnet!

And anyway, as those who post in View on Wayne Rooney and Justin Bieber frequently point out in relation to those threads and those who do not appreciate them - if you see a thread in the POLITICS GOSSIP forum (the clue is in the name) entitled rather obviously the US Presidential Election 2012, don't click on it if you're not interested!

Back to topic:



Nope. It's a complete dereliction of duty by BOTH the main US parties. I think it's down to the cowardice of the "professional political class" which is starting to appeal to me as a problem (I know you're convinced already).



I think jazze is more of an anarcho-syndicalist (and therefore, by definition, quite far left of centre) than a "right-wing nut-job". Anyway, he brightens up these threads....and I think he might agree with your unproven oligarchical conspiracy to run the US as a capitalist theme park theory.

As Ross Perot put it when he was running as a third-party candidate for president in 1992 against George H. W. Bush (incumbent) and Bill Clinton:
"Politics attracts the wrong kinds of people."
It's noteworthy that he failed to point out the fact that politics had attracted him as well.
After all, who would want a job where you can trust no one, you have to constantly watch your back and you have no friends. It's a very lonely job.

I am not right-wing or left-wing.

I believe in the goodness of people and the beauty of freedom. and because absolute power corrupts I want the government to be as weak as possible.

"When the people fear the government, you have tyranny.
When the government fears the people, you have freedom."

Many prominent and respectable names hold the same view.
Statistics on the concentration of wealth over the last 30 years bear out the facts. You have to be very dense to not see through some of the legislation that gets passed these days.


That's all fine and good. Very idealistic.
But when the government is as weak as possible then who is going to protect the public from the predators and save the environment from the pillagers?
It will all work fine if everyone is nice and honest and no one is greedy, you marry a nice girl and raise a large family to support you in your old age. Let's hope that you are never unemployed and never incur expensive medical costs because there will be no NHS.
Sounds nice.

Everyone is greedy, its natural. But in a free society if you want more you have to do something that someone else wants. You can't steal things like the government can.

I would still have some government, but their only role would be to protect the rights of citizens in the constitution.

Do you realise how much tax you pay? You would have probably twice as much money if you didn't pay tax and there is this concept called "saving"

For unforseen health problems there is insurance. Insurance CAN work, it doesn't have to be as bad as the broken US health insurance system.

Anyways. Back on topic.

I think Obama is gonna win no matter what. He has 71%+ approval amongst blacks and latinos no matter what and the possible republican candidates are all rubbish.

Also obama is definately gonna win Florida, Cali, Michigan and without michigan and florida I don;t think any republican can win

November 2012 is a long way off. A lot can happen between now and then. It's way too early.

Democrats win the black vote by about 10 to 1. It fluctuates by a point or two, but never significantly. This is offset by the fact that black voters make up a small proportion of the total population (13%) and that they traditionally have a much lower turnout than other demographic groups. Black voters turned out in atypically large numbers in 2008 due to the presence of the first black candidate, but the history has happened. Whether that will have the same draw again is uncertain. The likelihood is that black turnout will be above normal levels but below 2008.

Hispanics (and indeed asians) tend to be a much less monolithic block. 2010 exit polls suggest that the republicans won 38% of Hispanics and 40% of asians. Polls have Obama's support among hispanics between 55% and 70%, but it is worth noting that it varies massively from state to state. In 2010 republicans only received about 30% of hispanic votes in California (Obama wins whatever) and Texas (Obama would still lose if the Republicans nominated satan) but they got 50% in Florida which is a swing state.

Add to that that Obama's approval ratings amongst whites are flatlining in critical territory and he's not in very good shape at all.

As for Republicans winning without Florida and Michigan, Bush 43 lost Michigan twice, Bush 41 amd Reagan could have lost both Florida and Michigan and still won, Nixon lost Michigan, and he could have lost Florida as well and still won, Eisenhower could have lost both of them and still won, Hoover could have lost both and still won, Coolidge lost Florida, and could have lost Michigan as well and still won, likewise Harding, Taft, Roosevelt and McKinley.
Obviously the electoral value of the states was different in times gone by, but while Florida has become a vital state for Republicans, if the democrats are having to draw the battle line in Michigan then they have already lost.

As for Obama "definitely going to win Florida" I would draw your attention to the latest Quinnipiac offering

Majorities disapprove of the job he is doing and say he doesn't deserve a second term and he trails a generic republican. If you can only get 38% against a generic opponent and only 42% say you deserve another term then I wouldn't make too many non refundable plans for the victory party.

The numbers look better for Nelson, but 43% is hardly inspiring for an incumbent.

People can't steal? And it's not stealing. We KNOW the government is taking taxes from us. We either accept it, or stop paying and leave the country (an option few people seem comfortable with). We would not have twice as much money without taxes. American tax rates are far below 50%. If I were Canadian or Swedish, THEN you'd have an argument. And yet Denmark, a socialist country with tax-paid healthcare (over 50% tax rate) AND education, is the happiest one in the world.

The prices we Americans pay for what isn't covered by taxes (namely education and healthcare) takes out FAR more of our money than taxes. And the loans I take out to cover my education since it ISN'T tax-paid charge interest every year. And I paid for my first two years free and clear. AND I had a lot of grants. AND my degree in psychology is actually costing me money now that I'm in college, because after a four-year degree, grants are no longer available to me. So if you want a shot at any career of real prosperity, your education comes directly out of your own pocket, or from loans, which cost even more money. So no, I don't think I'd be twice as rich without taxes.

And taxes pay for shit like the roads we drive on, parks we sit at, and all the other shit we don't have to do ourselves. To quote Lewis Black, "I don't want to get a call at three in the morning with someone shouting, 'Lewis! The George Washington Bridge is out! Bring a shovel!' Then I'd get there with my shovel and they'd say, 'Wrong shovel, asshole!'"

While some taxes are always going to be bitched about in some form, they allow progress at a much faster rate. Because left to our greedy natural devices, none of us would wanna help out the other guy.

Why don't you move to Denmark then instead of forcing me to pay for all your "shit"?

Or North Korea, I hear their government controls everything too

You could move to the UAE. Also a dreadful place, but in different ways.

Most of the world through most of history have had dreadful governments, thats why its such a shame that the US is following suit.

Anyways, your GREED demanding that others pay for you is going to ruin your country.

Like I said: Iceland, Greece, Ireland, Portugal, then Ireland again, Spain, Belgium, UK, USA etc until the whole game is finished and all those governments go BROKE and you're all POOR and helpless.

Do you live on the moon or something? What's with "you're all POOR and helpless"?

It's not really demanding that others pay for me - for what it's worth, since I've been working full-time I think I've had the police round once and went to the doctor's with a minor shoulder injury. I'm not planning to have any children, so I'm hardly reliant on the state. However, I'm not arrogant enough to think that the life that I enjoy is all my own work - I'm lucky enough to have been born in a clean hospital, went to state-funded schools and live in a society that values what I'm good at to a sufficient degree that I can get by. If I'd been born in a tribe of hunter-gatherers back in the day, no-one would have cared that I can conjugate an irregular verb...

By the way, I'd be interested to know why you think this downturn is any worse than the previous ones? Why are we in danger of Zimbabwe-style inflation? Why will the whole game be finished?