Welcome, Guest. Please login or register.
Did you miss your activation email?
May 28, 2020, 02:16 AM
Pages: 1 ... 5 6 [7] 8 9 ... 12   Go Down
Author Topic: The Presidential Election In The USA..........  (Read 83220 times)
0 Members and 1 Guest are viewing this topic.
Most Active Member
Offline Offline

Posts: 10871

« Reply #90 on: Oct 23, 2012, 10:48 AM »

This is what is happening in America. How voter machines are corrupted.

Click to watch:

Most Active Member
Offline Offline

Posts: 10871

« Reply #91 on: Oct 24, 2012, 06:50 AM »

October 23, 2012

Watching U.S. Race, Other Nations See Themselves


MOSCOW — For weeks, coverage of the United States presidential race in Russia’s state-controlled media has been obscured by a layer of derision, cast by top commentators as a mudslinging brawl or a “beauty contest” in which candidates vie for the loyalty of voting blocs, “some who love ample, fatty brunettes — and some preferring skinny anorexics.”

But for those who believed that Russia had nothing at stake, Monday’s televised debate served to focus the mind. By lunchtime on Tuesday, a top analyst had rendered his verdict in the newspaper Izvestiya: If Mitt Romney wins, Fyodor Lukyanov wrote, “it’s not that relations between Russia and the United States will be spoiled — they will halt. And they will not exist for a long time.”

As the race between Mr. Romney and President Obama rounds its last curve, the world is watching — and the coverage from other countries reveals as much about how they see themselves as it does about the American political process.

Japanese reporters have followed candidates on the campaign trail, scrutinizing their tactics as a blueprint for the vibrant two-party system Japan would like to build.

Brazilian commentators, drawing on their familiarity with American cultural icons, are poring over details — expressing shock, for example, at Mr. Romney’s idea of ending the subsidy for PBS, whose Big Bird is fondly called Garibaldo in Brazil’s version of “Sesame Street.”

In other countries, like Russia and China, coverage has been muted, reflecting both wariness about Mr. Romney and disappointment with the four-year arc of Mr. Obama’s foreign policy. Indeed, disillusionment has tempered news coverage in many countries — even Germany, a nation addicted to American political arcana. In contrast with 2008, when coverage of the Democratic primaries was breathless front-page news all over Germany, this season’s analysis has been sober and far less enthusiastic.

“Everyone was asking in 2008, ‘Where is the German Obama?’ ” said Christoph von Marschall, Washington bureau chief for Germany’s Tagesspiegel newspaper. “Nobody asks this anymore. Obama is no longer the messiah. He is also just a politician, a normal and sometimes nasty politician.”

In Japan, by comparison, major newspapers and television news run daily stories on the campaign, pointing out the candidates’ missteps and setbacks with analysis that would seem zealous in American outlets. Their enthusiasm is largely practical. Three years ago, an election ended decades of one-party dominance in Japan, and its leaders are searching for a model for a two-party system.

Though commentators are critical of aspects of American campaigning, like attack ads, the competitive political system is still viewed positively in Japan, and readers lap up fine-grained details about exercises like party primaries. The raw verbal sparring at debates is the subject of particular fascination, in part because such direct personal attacks are foreign to Japan’s restrained, self-deprecating political culture.

“The whole world is watching the election of the superpower,” the Mainichi Shimbun, one of Japan’s biggest dailies, said recently in an editorial. “We expect an energetic battle of words on such issues as” the dispute with China over islands in the East China Sea. But if they were waiting for rigorous discussion of issues of regional interest, Japanese newspapers have seemed disappointed so far.

“In contrast to the ferocity of their verbal give-and-take, the debates have left those of us outside the United States feeling dissatisfied,” the Nishi Nippon Shimbun said in an editorial.

Brazilian correspondents have fanned out to Colorado, Nevada and New Hampshire, offering daily coverage of every shift in the polls.

Commentary has poured out via blogs and social media — Brazil ranks second after the United States in users of both Facebook and Twitter — and news outlets, agitated over the fate of Big Bird, seemed relieved when the Obama campaign released ads attacking Mr. Romney for suggesting that financing for PBS could be cut.

Though Latin America has barely figured as a topic in the campaign, Brazilians are fascinated as the race moves into its final days with the two candidates in a dead heat.

An influential political columnist, Elio Gaspari, on Sunday dissected a chain of events in which Mr. Romney and Mr. Obama could split the Electoral College with 269 votes each, sending the race to a vote in the House of Representatives. That way, he wrote, Mr. Romney could win the presidency even if Mr. Obama were to win the popular vote.

“American democracy will look terrible in that light,” he wrote.

That sense of drama is not reaching Chinese viewers. Though the main national television channel, CCTV, has opened a large new bureau in Washington, the presidential race has not been given much prominence in news reports, and no Chinese reporters have been out on the campaign trail.

This is partly a matter of timing; Election Day in the United States comes just two days before the opening of the all-important 18th Communist Party Congress, which is to usher in a new set of leaders in the second peaceful transfer of power in China’s Communist era.

The capital, Beijing, is consumed with its own internal political jockeying, and there is little sense of how the top government leaders view Mr. Romney and Mr. Obama.

The campaign has drawn interest among Chinese who have frequent contact with Americans. Students and young workers say they are fascinated with the open debate, and what seem like major differences between the two major parties.

“The clash of ideologies in the United States is so much more dramatic than that in China,” said Guan Xin, who translates such American material as “The Daily Show” and “Real Time With Bill Maher” into Chinese. “You always hear phrases like ‘bitterly polarized’ in news reports. The partisan division between the right and the left is so big now. I haven’t seen the phrase ‘class warfare’ in a Chinese newspaper in ages.”

Russian coverage is similarly muted. The American race comes after a string of three largely noncompetitive elections in Russia, which have extended the rule of President Vladimir V. Putin and the main pro-Kremlin party, United Russia. The authorities in Russia are preoccupied with controlling domestic dissent, and have asserted that the United States State Department has actively supported a rise in antigovernment activism.

Vladimir Solovyov, a popular television host, said Mr. Obama’s presidency had delivered another round of disappointment for Russia.

“Finally, we understood that there is nothing to expect from the United States,” he said. “Unfortunately, you do not live by your promises to other countries.”

On television, which heavily influences public opinion, much commentary on the hard-fought American race has been neutral or negative.

“Dumb and dumber,” announced an anchorwoman on Sunday’s edition of “Vesti,” a news roundup, as she introduced a segment on the election. “The fashion in the last two weeks of this election season: It was decided to fill voters’ hearts and minds not with love for their candidate, but with hatred for the other.”

“To an outsider, the struggle for the superpower’s top post looks like a squabble in the kitchen of a communal apartment,” she said. In the segment, the reporter Grigori Yemelyanov declared, “America likes a show — it’s probably more interesting to watch than to make a principled choice between two diametrically opposing platforms.”

Behind this criticism there is some concern about what a Romney victory would mean in Russia, especially after Monday’s debate, when the candidate accused Mr. Obama of showing a submissive face to Mr. Putin. Some hard-liners in the Kremlin, who have warned of external threats to Russia as a way to unify the country, may see a useful foil in Mr. Romney, who has called Russia “our No. 1 geopolitical foe.”

Despite cooling perceptions of the United States, Mr. Obama is preferred by ordinary Russians; in a survey released this month by the All-Russian Center for Public Opinion Studies, 42 percent said an Obama victory would benefit Russia, whereas only 4 percent said the same of a Romney victory.

“Look, Obama is a partner,” said Aleksei K. Pushkov, who hosts the political talk show “Post-Scriptum” and is the head of the Duma’s foreign affairs committee. “We may be disappointed with him, but we consider him a partner. Romney does not look like a partner at all.”

Reporting was contributed by Simon Romero from Rio de Janeiro; Nicholas Kulish from Berlin; Hanna Kozlowska from Warsaw; Choe Sang-Hun from Seoul, South Korea; Martin Fackler from Tokyo; Jane Perlez from Beijing; and Anna Kordunsky from Moscow.

This article has been revised to reflect the following correction:

Correction: October 23, 2012

An earlier version of this article misspelled the name of the Washington bureau chief for Germany’s daily Tagesspiegel newspaper. He is Christoph von Marschall, not Marshall. The article also misstated the duration of one-party rule in Japan, which ended in 2009. It was not 57, as the article originally stated, or 55, as stated in an earlier correction.


Poll finds 20 of 21 countries strongly prefer Obama (exception: Pakistan)

Posted by Max Fisher on October 23, 2012 at 1:46 pm

A just-out BBC World Service poll surveying 22,000 people in 21 countries found a wide preference for President Obama in the presidential race, who scored 50 percent favorable among all respondents to Mitt Romney’s 9 percent. Almost a quarter, 24 percent, gave some variation of an answer that it made no difference. Only 16 percent said they didn’t know, a reminder of how closely the world follows American politics.

The poll surveyed many of the world’s most populous countries. It emphasized famously Obama-friendly Western Europe but skipped Russia and the Arab Middle East. Here are the results from Globescan’s report:


The only country where Romney scored higher was Pakistan, which may be more about widespread opposition to the Obama administration’s policies than is it about embracing Romney. Only 11 percent of Pakistanis said they wanted to see Obama reelected — by far his lowest score out of the countries surveyed — while 15 percent supported Romney, which is roughly consistent with his numbers in other countries. An earlier Pew poll found only 7 percent confidence for Obama in Pakistan, with 60 percent expressing no confidence. The U.S. drone program in Pakistan’s border region is a source of particular popular animus.

Obama scored extremely well in Canada, Australia, Africa, Western Europe (except Spain, where he received a relatively low 45 percent, though Romney got only 1 percent), as well as Panama and Brazil. Since 2008, when the poll was also conducted, pro-Obama sentiment has most significantly dropped in China, Mexico and Kenya; it rose by the widest margins in India and Panama.

Romney’s best showing was in Kenya with 18 percent, perhaps reflecting a degree of disillusionment with Obama (John McCain scored only 5 percent there in the 2008 poll). His second-highest score was in Poland. “Eastern Europe has long seen Republicans as more sympathetic to their struggles with Russia, and former Polish president Lech Walesa endorsed Romney over the summer,” The Post’s Michael Birnbaum and Keith B. Richburg explained Sunday. Broadly, though, his numbers in this poll are consistent with McCain’s in 2008, suggesting the possibility that many foreign publics associate Republicans with the George W. Bush, whose administration was deeply unpopular abroad.

Neither candidate fared especially well in China or, more surprisingly, Japan. Chinese gave Obama 28 percent approval and Romney 9 percent, a single-digit but significant drop since 2008. Both citizens and government officials in China have been glued to the 2012 race, often expressing concern over the increasingly pointed rhetoric against Chinese policies.

Japanese opinion is more complicated, in part because polls have been inconsistent. Globescan says that 33 percent support Obama and 9 percent for Romney, pretty low given how highly Japanese seem to score the U.S. in other surveys. A Gallup poll found Japan’s presidential job approval rating drop from 66 percent in 2009 to 46 percent in 2011. Pew reported that Japanese confidence in Obama had slipped from a sky-high 85 percent in 2009 to a still-high 74 percent this year; the same poll, though, found Japanese favorability toward the U.S. itself rising from 59 percent to 72 percent. Pew’s analysts attributed this increase to the U.S. aid effort after the March 2011 Fukushima crisis, although it’s not clear, then, why they would appear to rate Obama so poorly in the Globescan poll.

The countries where Obama leads together make up about 56.4 percent of the global population. Non-Americans sometimes joke — or gripe — that they should get a vote in U.S. presidential elections, given the winner’s potential impact on their country and sometimes individual lives. If they did, it seems likely, based on this poll, that Obama would win.

* globescan-global-views-poll.jpg (129.29 KB, 350x543 - viewed 372 times.)
Most Active Member
Offline Offline

Posts: 10871

« Reply #92 on: Oct 24, 2012, 07:36 AM »

Obama Blasts Romney’s Poor Debate Performance as Stage Three Romnesia

By: Jason Easley   October 23rd, 2012

President Obama keeps hammering the message home that Mitt Romney is lying. Today, Obama diagnosed Romney’s poor debate performance as stage three Romnesia.

Here is the video: http://www.youtube.com/watch?feature=player_embedded&v=Ym7ALGy4Bjk


    THE PRESIDENT: Now, last night we had our third and last debate. And I hope that during the debate I made those differences very clear. Because the greatest responsibility I have as President is to keep the American people safe. That’s why I ended the war in Iraq, so we could go after the terrorists who actually attacked us on 9/11. That’s why we decimated al Qaeda’s core leadership and brought Osama bin Laden the justice he deserved. That’s why we’re ending the war in Afghanistan, because after a decade of war, it’s time to do some nation-building here at home. In a world of new threats and profound challenges, America needs leadership that is strong and is steady. Governor Romney’s foreign policy has been wrong and reckless. Last night he was all over the map. Did you notice that? During the debate he said he didn’t want more troops in Iraq, but he was caught on video saying it was unthinkable not to leave 20,000 troops in Iraq, troops that would still be there today.

    Last night he claimed to support my plan to end the war in Afghanistan. I’m glad he supports it. But he’s opposed a timeline that would actually bring our troops home. Early in this campaign he said he’d do the opposite of whatever I did in Israel, but last night I reminded him that cooperation with Israel has never been stronger.

    Last night he said he always supported taking out Osama bin Laden, but in 2007, he said it wasn’t worth moving heaven and earth to catch one man.

    Now, we’ve come up with a name for this condition. It’s called Romnesia.

    AUDIENCE: Romnesia! Romnesia! Romnesia!

    THE PRESIDENT: We had a severe outbreak last night. It was at least stage three Romnesia. And I just want to go over with you some of the symptoms, Delray, because I want to make sure nobody in the surrounding area catches it. If you say that you love American cars during a debate, but you wrote an article titled, “Let Detroit Go Bankrupt,” you might have Romnesia.

    If you talk about how much you love teachers during a debate — but said just a few weeks ago that we shouldn’t hire any more because they won’t grow the economy, what do you have?

    AUDIENCE: Romnesia!

    THE PRESIDENT: I’ll bet you’ve got some Romnesia. If you say you love Medicare — and by the way, there’s a theme here — he keeps on loving stuff and then wants to end it or cut it or not help it. But if you say that you love Medicare, but your plan turns it into a voucher that ends the guaranteed benefit of Medicare, you definitely have Romnesia.

    So, I mean, we’re breaking down the symptoms here. If you’ve come down with a case of Romnesia, if you can’t seem to remember the policies on your website, or the promises that you’ve been making over the six years that you’ve been running for President, if you can’t even remember what you said last week — don’t worry, Obamacare covers preexisting conditions. We can fix you up. We can cure this disease. There’s a cure!

    Listen, let me just say this. In all seriousness, I mean, we’re accustomed to seeing politicians change their positions from four years ago. We are not accustomed to seeing politicians change their position from four days ago.

The Romnesia line drives the Romney campaign absolutely nuts, because it is true. It was good to see the president not get caught up in using his entire speech to fact check Romney. The vast majority of the electorate is well aware of what Romney is up to. What voters want to hear from Obama is his message about the next four years.

Romnesia has become a nifty bit of political shorthand that allows the president to call out Romney’s ever changing positions without losing his own message. Romnesia helps Obama get out the vote. It is the counterattack to Mitt Romney’s efforts to make himself look as bland and non-threatening as possible.

The Romney campaign should be afraid of Obama’s Romnesia line, because it is working. For the next two weeks, swing state voters all across the country are going to hear about they can’t trust anything that comes out of Mitt Romney’s mouth.

With each laugh Obama’s Romnesia line gets, Mitt Romney inches closer to losing this election.
Most Active Member
Offline Offline

Posts: 10871

« Reply #93 on: Oct 24, 2012, 07:37 AM »

Bad News for Romney: Ohio Early Voting Turnout is Up for Obama, Down for GOP

By: Jason EasleyOctober 23rd, 2012

In a conference call with reporters Obama campaign manager Jim Messina dropped some devastating numbers on Romney. Messina pointed out that more people are early voting for Obama in 2012 than did in 2008.

Messina laid out what early voting is looking like for the president right now. He said Obama is winning early voting in Ohio, Iowa, and Wisconsin. Ohio early vote turnout is higher for Obama in 2008 than in Republican counties. He said that this election is more diverse. Most new registrants are under 30. 2/3 of those who have early voted are women, African-Americans, and Latinos. Democrats are winning everywhere where there are in person early votes.

Obama’s campaign manager explained why they think some of these polls are way off in the battleground states, “I do think there is some differences in states, we delve very deep into these states, and we think some people aren’t getting it right about who this electorate is going to be.” We continue to think the math has changed in Florida.” He said there are 250,000 more registered African-American and Latino voters in Florida, and that overall early voting among African-Americans is up 50% over 2008.

New voter registration numbers in Ohio heavily favor Obama. Four in five Ohioans (81 percent) who have registered to vote in 2012 are either female, younger than 30, or African-American or Latino. 64 percent of Ohioans who have registered to vote in 2012, and the same percentage among those who have already voted, live in counties that President Obama won in 2008.

The polling numbers for early voting in Ohio also back up what the Obama campaign is saying. A Survey USA poll found that Obama leads by 19 points (57/38) among those who have already. PPP found that Obama leads by 52 points (76%-24%) in Ohio early voting. The Wall Street Journal/NBC News poll found Obama leading Romney, 63%-37% with early voters. Even Republican pollster Rasmussen has Obama leading big in Ohio early voting, 63%-34%.

Recent early voting numbers in Ohio back up the Obama campaign’s claim that early voting is up for Obama and down for Romney. 582,402 ballots have been requested this year from precincts that Obama won in 2008, 33,414 more than in from precincts that McCain won.The total number of votes already cast this year (both by mail and in-person) from precincts Obama won in 2008 is 261,304 – 55,636 more than from precincts McCain won.

When people worry about the voting machines in Ohio, one of the things that must be considered is that the election has to be close enough to be stolen. During the conference call, both Axelrod and Messina suggested that their goal was to pile up huge margins in the early voting swing states that would make the math for Romney difficult to impossible to overcome on Election Day.

I am a believer in the importance of vigilance against election fraud. I think letting the people who would cheat know that we are watching them does serve as a deterrent, but what must be kept in mind is that election must be close enough to be stolen.

Only a fool would believe that Romney wouldn’t cheat if given the chance, but the purpose of the Obama ground game is to pile up a big lead in early voting, so that the Republican Party doesn’t get their chance to pull any Election Day shenanigans in Ohio.
Very Active Member
Offline Offline

Posts: 301

« Reply #94 on: Oct 24, 2012, 04:14 PM »

And now, from the terminally deluded, a divination of God's intent with this election:

Beck: God ‘guided’ Romney to lose final debate
By David Edwards
Wednesday, October 24, 2012 14:56 EDT

Conservative talk show host Glenn Beck says that Republican presidential nominee Mitt Romney lost the final debate because he was “being guided” by God to be “less contentious” and agree with President Barack Obama.

Although Obama was aggressive throughout the Monday’s debate, Romney used a softer strategy, repeatedly endorsing the current administration’s positions on Afghanistan, Iraq, Iran, Syria and the use of drones. The tactic clearly worked for the president because instant polls conducted by CBS News and CNN showed that he won decisively.

While conservative columnist Ann Coulter joked that Romney was simply being “kind and gentle to the retard,” Beck was clearly disgusted with the Republican nominee’s performance, tweeting, “I am so glad mitt agrees with Obama so much. No, really. Why vote?”

But by Tuesday, the conservative radio host seemed to have come to terms with Romney’s loss, chalking it up to God’s will.

“I believe Mr. Romney prays on his knees every day,” Beck said during his radio program. “I know he prays before the debate. I don’t know if it was the right thing, but I believe he’s being guided. And I believe he feels it’s important to be less contentious. It may be that he’s doing exactly what the Lord wants him to do right now.”

“A lot of people who are conservatives who have been walking down this road for a long time, we wanted him to eviscerate the president last night, metaphorically speaking. But our ways aren’t necessarily His ways. And I hope and pray and believe Mitt Romney is trying to seek out His way.”

He added: “Last night, you saw somebody who took the stage who appeared to me to be George Washington.”

Speaking to his radio listeners last month, Beck said that Romney’s poll numbers had fallen as a part of a plan from God to make it obvious to the American people that divine intervention was responsible when Republicans took the White House in November.

“I am to the point that — God is trying to make this so clear to us that if it happens, it’s his finger,” he explained.

Raw Story (http://s.tt/1qUAk)



Offline Offline

Posts: 6

« Reply #95 on: Oct 25, 2012, 12:43 AM »

RT: 'Obama, Romney - same police state': Third party debate up-close (FULL VIDEO)

Published: 24 October, 2012

There's a blackout by the mainstream media and the US political elite on coverage of third parties, but RT covered and broadcast this year's third-party presidential debate, hosted by Larry King and featuring a panel including our own Thom Hartmann.

On Tuesday night, RT was one of only a handful of media outlets to broadcast the debate, moderated by award-winning broadcast journalist Larry King. Organized by the Free and Equal Elections Foundation, candidates from the Constitution, Green, Justice and Libertarian parties sounded off on the issues facing American voters, without having to worry about towing party lines for the Democrats or Republicans.

The third-party candidates' debate statements, diverse as they were, were a change of pace for the growing number of Americans who see little substantive difference between Mitt Romney and Barack Obama. Though they often disagreed, there was near unanimity on one general concept: The Democratic and Republican parties represent corporate interests, not the average American.

Speaking to RT, Free and Equal Elections Foundation founder Christina Tobin said, "We’re going to shift the power back to the people, back to the origins of the Constitution, which doesn’t even mention parties or corporations."

Despite having their voices and positions largely shut out of the two-party system, Libertarian Party candidate Gary Johnson, Green Party candidate Jill Stein, Constitution Party candidate Virgil Goode and Justice Party candidate Rocky Anderson plan to continue their campaigns until Election Day. Largely ignored by the mainstream media, the candidates had few opportunities before this debate to air their positions on critical issues, and their visions for America.

At the outset, the four dove into a set of questions submitted through social media – after the debate's hosts forgot to allow time for opening statements. The debate went smoothly after that, and the audience breaking into applause after each candidate’s answer. On one occasion, an answer was even met with boos – hardly the stuff of traditional presidential debates.

Before taking the stage, each candidate was interviewed by a panel that included RT's Thom Hartmann and the event's organizers.

If you missed RT's live coverage, make sure to check out our full video of the debate – and our in-depth breakdown of the four candidates and their positions – below.

­Rocky Anderson – Justice Party

Representing the newly formed Justice Party, Ross Carl Anderson served two terms as the mayor of Salt Lake City, Utah. A former Democrat, Anderson focused on income-related issues facing Americans, specifically mentioning the "corrupting influence of money" in American politics. The result, he said, was that American officials end up representing whoever floats them the most cash, rather than their constituents.

As for the two-party system, Anderson took a clear stance: It's putting a "stranglehold on our democracy."

Anderson positioned himself as a candidate fighting for lower-income Americans who often fall victim to both financial interests and law enforcement. He was adamant that Washington must help students facing crippling loan debts and working families facing foreclosure if Wall Street continues to get an unlimited zero-interest credit line.

On domestic issues, Anderson said the US Constitution was "shredded" under George W. Bush and Obama, with the National Defense Authorization Act (NDAA) allowing US presidents to imprison anyone for the rest of their lives, without trial or even formal charges.

Anderson also insisted on the right to education for all Americans, saying "we cannot afford not to provide" the higher learning that leads to "equality of opportunity." While Washington pushes austerity, he said, Americans must demand prosperity and support the workers and students he says will build the country's future.

The War on Drugs was a hot topic at the debate. Anderson was clear that he sees it as a waste of national money, and a "source of unbelievable human tragedy." He noted examples of Americans who will sit in prison for decades simply for selling marijuana, which he said should be legalized. He used the example of alcohol, which was formerly under prohibition, and said drugs should be issues for education and health issues – not law enforcement.

Anderson added that the US incarcerates more people for drug charges than the entire prison population of Western Europe. If elected president, he said, he would immediately pardon anyone in jail on a drug offense that did not include any other charge.

On foreign policy, Anderson told the audience that under both George W. Bush and Obama, the US has engaged in overseas wars based on a "pack of lies." He said that while the Pentagon warns that climate change is a bigger threat to national security than global terrorism, elected officials are "sound asleep" and asking to increase military spending.

He then further explained his stance on foreign wars: The US should not engage in wars of aggression, and should only attack another country if American soil has been attacked first. Anderson also noted that wars of aggression are illegal under the UN Charter, and that the US has lobbied for the prosecution of foreign leaders who commit the same crimes US officials have committed.  

Virgil Goode – Constitution Party

The nominee from the Constitution Party, Virgil Hamlin Goode, is a former member of the United States House of Representatives who wants to give Americans broader access to diverse political views. He believes that without a constitutional amendment limiting politicians’ terms, the Congress will always be more worried about the next election than solving the country’s problems.

Goode kept most of his answers short and sweet, focusing on balancing the US government's budget while respecting constitutional principles. He had little to say that didn't fit into a brief soundbite – and clearly took pride in the brevity and clarity of his answers.

In his opening statement, Goode gave a concrete example of what he said many Americans are feeling: That there's little substantive difference between Obama and Romney. "Obama and Romney both claim to support a balanced budget," Goode told the audience, "but the Obama budget is $1 trillion in deficit," while the budget proposed by vice-presidential candidate Paul Ryan would create an $800 billion deficit.

Goode proposed spending cuts in various areas. Another of his much-touted concepts was term limits for elected officials, so that they can do their best possible work in office instead of constantly fundraising to get reelected. He conceded that such a proposal would be fought tooth and nail in Washington, and might require a grandfather clause allowing sitting politicians to serve until they retire.

He was also adamant about the danger of Political Action Committees (PACs) in American politics, which he said impede the democratic process. "We must throw the PACs out now," he declared.

As for the War on Drugs, Goode was clear: He doesn't support the legalization of drugs. He supports cutting back federal anti-drug spending, but noted that would only account for a few billion dollars of the budget, a relatively small sum in Washington's budget.

Goode was the only candidate to draw boos from the crowd when he said he would cut funding to Planned Parenthood "to zero." He justified the proposal by saying "we have to reduce nearly everything" to balance the budget.

Another of Goode's proposed budget cuts was the Department of Defense. Goode said he supported a strong defense, but not the US' current role as the "policemen of the world." He closed his answer by saying that "the US must stop trying to be the overseer of the world."

Goode also said he would cut Pell Grants, veto the NDAA and put a moratorium on green cards for immigrants until unemployment dropped below five percent for American citizens.

­Gary Johnson – Libertarian Party

­Libertarian Party candidate Gary Johnson is an experienced entrepreneur and a former Governor of New Mexico who, he said, made a name for himself by vetoing legislation. He said he would veto laws that end up costing the American taxpayer more than the country can afford, or laws that dictate what citizens can do in the privacy of their own homes. Most of Johnson's answers dealt with domestic issues.

Johnson's first point was that the US political system is in desperate need of transparency. Whether Obama or Romney is elected next month, he told the audience, we will still have "a heightened police state in the US." And Obama and Romney are guaranteed to continue American military interventions abroad, he added.

One of the domestic changes Johnson emphasized was term limits for elected officials. Implementing them, he said, would do away with the politician who makes grand promises while campaigning but never fulfills them. He contrasted that approach with his own record, recalling how the term limit for governors forced him to "push the envelope" as much as he could while in office.

One way Johnson said he'd push the envelope as president would be to abolish income taxes on individuals and corporations. He linked the tax issue to an impending "monetary collapse," in which US dollars would be worthless thanks to the country's debts.  

However, he saw taxing marijuana as one alternative to outlawing it. "I have drank alcohol," he said, "and I have smoked marijuana. … I can tell you that in no category is marijuana more dangerous than alcohol – yet we are arresting 1.8 million people a year on drug-related crimes." He claimed that fully half of the US court and prison budget every year goes to drug-related offenses, and asked, rhetorically, "to what end?"

He was also clear in his position on education: "the notion of 'free' must be put to an end" in the US, and that would include education. He argued that the system of guaranteed federal loans allows universities to charge whatever they want due to immunity from real pricing mechanisms.

Johnson repeated throughout the debate that thanks to American wars abroad, the US has unnecessarily made millions of enemies around the world. The use of the military, he said, is to defend the country, not invade other nations. "The biggest threat to our national security is that we're bankrupt," he told the audience, proposing a 43% cut to military spending that would end every single overseas US military engagement.

Johnson stood in contrast to Goode, the other candidate on the right, in his stance on immigration. "Immigration is a good thing," he told viewers, proposing that the US make it as simple as possible for foreigners who want to work to get American work visas.

He also called for an end to drone strikes and the hawkish stance against Iran. Along with the other candidates, Johnson called for a veto of the NDAA, saying he would decommission it if elected. He also said he would repeal the PATRIOT Act, and ensure that marriage equality is protected under the Constitution, dubbing it a struggle on par with the Civil Rights Movement of the 1960s.

Jill Stein – Green Party

­Green Party nominee Jill Ellen Stein, a Harvard-trained doctor, stands for social responsibility and renewable energy as a path to restoring the country. She proposed a 'Green New Deal' that would bring renewable energy jobs to the US and push the country towards energy independence.

"We could turn American politics on its head," she told the crowd, if students and workers banded together to support a third party.

Stein was enthusiastic about the untapped power in third parties. "Ninety million Americans will say no to politics as usual" this election year by not voting, she said. "Imagine what would happen if we let those voters know they have a variety of choices."

She opened by criticizing the mainstream debate system, saying Americans "must stand up and demand real democracy – including real debates." She noted how she and her running mate had been arrested and shackled to chairs for eight hours without charge after simply trying to enter the venue of one of the debates between Obama and Romney.

The furthest left of the candidates, Stein focused primarily on income inequality and the environment. "The wealthy are wealthier than ever," she said, adding that the rest of Americans are forced to accept the austerity program that allows Washington to spend trillions on wars abroad and pay for Wall Street's bad bets.

One solution to the economy under a Stein administration would be new jobs created by green energy. Another would be to make public higher education free for everyone, she said, "as it should be." She noted that it's not such a controversial claim, citing the WWII-era GI Bill for veterans that, she said, put seven dollars into the American economy for every dollar it cost.

Stein spoke as a doctor on the issue of drugs: "Marijuana is dangerous on account of being illegal, not illegal on account of being dangerous." The health impacts of the drug trade, she said, are much more significant than those of the actual drugs. "We must use science" to determine which drugs should be illegal, she said, in which case marijuana would be off the list immediately.

She repeatedly referred to American students as "indentured servants" of the financial interests that hold their debts. Stein maintained that students, not Wall Street, should be the recipients of federal bailouts. "They are the greatest resource we have," she told the audience.

Stein also mentioned several shorter points, including "outrage that the NDAA was ever passed." She called it an "incredible betrayal of our civil liberties," saying the president had "assumed dictatorial rights" by allowing himself the power to imprison Americans indefinitely without charge.

Stein also called for the repeal of the laws that allow for assassinations and wiretapping, along with the PATRIOT Act.

Finally, she said she would push for a constitutional amendment clarifying that money does not equate to speech, and that corporations are not people. She accused corporations of "stealing our rights of personhood," and subverting individuals in the political process.

Watch VIDEO: http://rt.com/usa/news/third-party-debate-us-election-094/

Offline Offline

Posts: 6

« Reply #96 on: Oct 25, 2012, 12:51 AM »

Police State USA: In Amerika there will Never be a Real Debate In the US today, the power of money rules. Nothing else is in the equation

(hyperlinks in the article: http://www.globalresearch.ca/police-state-usa-in-amerika-there-will-never-be-a-real-debate/5309506)

By Dr. Paul Craig Roberts

Global Research, October 24, 2012

God help them if Obama and Romney ever had to participate in a real debate about a real issue at the Oxford Union. They would be massacred.

The “debates” revealed that not only the candidates but also the entire country is completely tuned out to every real problem and dangerous development. For example, you would never know that US citizens can now be imprisoned and executed without due process. All that is required to terminate the liberty and life of an American citizen by his own government is an unaccountable decision somewhere in the executive branch.

No doubt that Americans, if they think of this at all, believe that it will only happen to terrorists who deserve it. But as no evidence or due process is required, how would we know that it only happens to terrorists? Can we really trust a government that has started wars in 7 countries on the basis of falsehoods? If the US government will lie about Iraqi weapons of mass destruction in order to invade a country, why won’t it lie about who is a terrorist?

America needs a debate about how we can be made more safe by removing the Constitutional protection of due process. If the power of government is not limited by the Constitution, are we ruled by Caesar? The Founding Fathers did not think we could trust a caesar with our safety. What has changed that we can now trust a caesar?

If we are under such a terrorist threat that the Constitution has to be suspended or replaced by unaccountable executive action, how come all the alleged terrorist cases are sting operations organized by the FBI? In eleven years there has not been a single case in which the “terrorist” had the initiative!

In the eleven years since 9/11, acts of domestic terrorism have been miniscule if they even exist. What justifies the enormous and expensive Department of Homeland Security? Why does Homeland Security have military-equipped Special Response Teams with armored vehicles?

Who are the targets of these militarized units? If eleven years of US government murder, maiming, and displacement of millions of Muslims hasn’t provoked massive acts of domestic terrorism, why is Homeland Security creating a domestic armed force of its own? Why are there no congressional hearings and no public discussion? How can a government whose budget is deep in the red afford a second military force with no defined and Constitutionally legal purpose?

What is Homeland Security’s motivation in creating a Homeland Youth? Is the new FEMA Corps a disguise for a more sinister purpose, a Hitler Youth as Internet sites suggest? Are the massive ammunition purchases by Homeland Security related to the raising of a nationwide corps of 18- to 24-year-olds? How can so much be going on in front of our eyes with no questions asked?

Why did not Romney ask Obama why he is working to overturn the federal court’s ruling that US citizens cannot be subject to indefinite detention in violation of the US Constitution? Is it because Romney and his neoconservative advisers agree with Obama and his advisers? If so, then why is one tyrant better than another?

Why has the US constructed a network of detainment camps, for which it is hiring “internment specialists”?

Why does the US Army now have a policy for “establishing civilian inmate labor programs and civilian prison camps on Army installations“?

Here is Rachel Maddow’s report on how Obama criticizes the neoconservative Bush/Cheney regime for violations of the US Constitution and US statutory law and then proposes the same thing himself. http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=L8J_lcHwkvc

How did the presidential debates avoid the fact of Predator Drones flying over us here in the domestic United States of America? What is the purpose of this? Why are the smallest police forces in the most remote of locations being equipped with armored cars? I have seen them. In small lilly-white communities north of Atlanta, Georgia, communities of sub-million dollar MacMansions have militarized police with armored cars and automatic weapons. SWAT teams in full military gear are everywhere. What is it all about? These small semi-rural areas will never see a terrorist or experience a hostage situation. Yet, they are all armed to the teeth. They are so heavily armed that they could be sent into combat against the Third Reich or the Red Army.

Any such questions run afoul of the assumption of America’s moral perfection. No such debate will ever happen. But if “it is the economy, stupid,” why is there no economic debate?

Last month the Federal Reserve announced QE3. If QE1 and QE2 did not work, why does anyone, including the Federal Reserve chairman, think that QE3 will work?

Yet, the utterly irrational financial markets, which haven’t a clue about anything, were overjoyed at QE3. This can only be because what rules the equity market is propaganda, spin, and disinformation, not facts. The vaunted stock market is incapable of making any correct decision. The decisions are made by the fools in the market operating on a short-run basis. The only safe path to take is to run with the lemmings. This strategy insures that a portfolio manager is always in the middle of his peers and, therefore, he doesn’t lose clients.

How wonderful it would have been for Obama and Romney to have confronted in a real debate how QE3, designed to help insolvent “banks too big to fail,” can help households operating, with two earners, on real incomes of 45 years ago, which is where the current real median household income stands.

How does saving a bank, designated as “too big to fail,” help the family whose jobs or main job has been exported to China or India in order to maximize corporate profits, executive performance bonuses and shareholders’ capital gains?

Obviously the working population of the US has been sacrificed to the profits of the mega-rich.

An appropriate debate question is: Why has the livelihood of working Americans been sacrificed to the profits of the mega-rich?

No such question will ever be asked in a “presidential debate.”

In the 21st century, US citizens became nonentities. They are brutalized by the police whose incomes their taxes pay. They, for protesting some injustice or for no cause at all, are beaten, arrested, tasered and even murdered. The police, paid by the public, beat up paralyzed people in wheel chairs, frame those who call them for help against criminals, taser grandmothers and small children, and shoot down in cold blood unarmed citizens who have done nothing except lose control of themselves, either through alcohol, drugs, or rage.

Brainwashed Americans pay large taxes at every level of government for protection against gratuitous violence, but what their taxes support is gratuitous violence against themselves. Every American, except for the small number of mega-rich who control Washington, can be arrested and dispossessed, both liberty and property, on the basis of nothing but an allegation of a member of the executive branch who might want the accused’s wife, girlfriend, property, or to settle a score, or to exterminate a rival, or to score against a high school, college, or business rival.

In America today, law serves the powerful, not justice. In effect, there is no law, and there is no justice. Only unaccountable power.

What is the point of a vote when the outcome is the same? Both candidates represent the interests of Israel, not the interests of the US. Both candidates represent the interests of the military/security complex, agribusiness, the offshoring corporations, the suppression of unions and workers, the total demise of civil liberty and the US Constitution, which is in the way of unbridled executive power .

In the US today, the power of money rules. Nothing else is in the equation. Why vote to lend your support to the continuation of your own exploitation? Every time Americans vote it is a vote for their own obliteration.


Paul Craig Roberts, former Assistant Secretary of the US Treasury and Associate Editor of the Wall Street Journal, has held numerous university appointments and is Contributing Editor to Gerald Celente’s Trends Journal.
« Last Edit: Oct 25, 2012, 01:12 AM by Prometheus » Logged

Offline Offline

Posts: 6

« Reply #97 on: Oct 25, 2012, 01:43 AM »

 I pray most intensely for the USA and its people. May good people find fortitude and courage to transform the country and take back the power back from the corporatocracy into the hands of righteous and wise leaders. The outcome of its fate is also pivotal for the rest of the world currently descending further down the current draconian deroute -  while the cracks in the walls separating people are showing signs of widening at the same time.

I am horrified and speechless and don't know what to write other than try to express something like; may adamant wise action, love and truth, prevail

Btw: There are so many wise and good people in this forum - Thx for your continuing pioneering explorations.


“Go confidently in the direction of your dreams. Live the life you have imagined.”
-  Henry David Thoreau

“Whatever course you decide upon, there is always someone to tell you that you are wrong. There are always difficulties arising which tempt you to believe that your critics are right. To map out a course of action and follow it to an end requires courage.”
   -  Ralph Waldo Emerson

“Dissent is the highest form of patriotism.”
 - Howard Zinn

« Last Edit: Oct 25, 2012, 01:50 AM by Prometheus » Logged
Most Active Member
Offline Offline

Posts: 10871

« Reply #98 on: Oct 25, 2012, 07:22 AM »

America's corporate media propaganda yet again ....

Mittocracy: Tearing Down The Media’s Mitt Momentum Myth

By: Sarah Jones October 24th, 2012

Very excited is the media about Mitt Romney’s “momentum”. They say he got this “momentum” when he lied his way through the first debate, leaving the President stunned by Mitt’s willingness to abandon all of his positions when facing the general public. We were told that the public loves an alpha male so win for Romney. No word on the fact that Romney’s post debate bounce evaporated a week later and the President won the second two debates, and Biden won the VP debate.

When Obama won the second debate, we were told women didn’t like the “pettiness” of the debate so lose for Obama because he fought back against the lies.

In the third debate, in which the President clearly routed Mitt Romney with facts and style (not surprising given that Mitt Romney knows less about foreign policy than he knows about taking care of dogs properly), we were told that Romney won or pulled even by not making any mistakes.

Sure, if Romney were ahead, that might make sense. But he’s not. And he did make mistakes. Romney made a gaffe ignored by the media, who lowered the bar for Romney as they did Palin. Romney said (again), “Syria is Iran’s . . . route to the sea.” This, of course, isn’t true. That’s Palin-level stuff, but barely a peep has been uttered about it. A Washington Post Fact Checker didn’t think it worthy of a Pinocchio rating “unless we create a category for weird language.” They haven’t done that yet, even though Sarah Palin used weird language for as subterfuge just as Romney is doing? Words don’t matter anymore?

Hey, kids! Climate change is a hoax and Syria is Iran’s route to the sea. Also, myths.

Romney, the media claimed, earned his stripes by sitting next to the president on a tough subject that the president is so good at. So, see, it’s not that you want the person who’s best at national security and foreign policy – it’s that you should give it to the guy who doesn’t care to learn about it because it’s unfair that he was outclassed by the President. Republicans don’t want a meritocracy anymore. They want a feel sorry for Mittocracy.

Helping these narratives along were the 25,000 tickets for a venue that seats 10,000 that the Romney campaign gave out to a Kid Rock concert/Romney campaign rally. There were crowds! He’s never managed to get a crowd until now, but the media claims it’s part of his momentum – not Kid Rock for free. Never mind that Romney has not managed to draw crowds like the President has consistently drawn during this entire campaign. Of special note were the “Democrats for Romney!” signs. This raises the spectre of the homeless African Americans the Scott Brown campaign paid to wear Obama for Brown! t-shirts, but okay.

And then we have the pollsters. New on the scene this year, because you can’t have enough Republican leaning pollsters even though there are more registered Democrats in this country than Republicans (though Republicans vote more than Democrats), we added Gravis Marketing to Rasmussen and Gallup, both of whom lean Republican — both of who are also reputable, tried and true polling firms, unlike Gravis Marketing.

Gravis Marketing is the pollster that announced African Americans were going for Romney suddenly by 40%, when all other polling showed Romney with 0-2% of the African American vote. When bloggers questioned Gravis Marketing’s methods, the owner showed up to argue in the comment section over and over and over again. Gravis is being included in most of the major poll tracking, and some folks weigh Gravis heavily.

Because Rasmussen uses formulas that render it in a different category than PPP, it’s possible that legitimate outlets are using Gravis as a conservative leaner to offset PPP. That doesn’t make Gravis accurate. It’s not just me — Bob Shrum noted Gravis’ Republican outlier status today on Politics Nation. It might behoove the media to read up on Gravis sooner rather than later. If they need help, the folks at Democratic Underground have done some digging.

This election will be won by state, not by feigned or propped up momentum. And by state, Romney is in trouble. Obama has the math in his favor at this point. Greg Sargent points out, “Whatever is happening on the national level, the fact remains that Romney faces a more daunting climb in the electoral math than Obama does — meaning the President is currently leading.”

Three new polls in battleground Virginia show Obama leading between 3-7 points. We’ve been told by the Romney campaign that Virginia was in the bag for them. “We are going to win Virginia, you know that?”

By early voting, Romney is in trouble. The Obama team’s ground game is a force of nature. In the all important state of Ohio, Obama is winning in early voting. Jason Easley covered the Obama ground game yesterday, “Obama is winning early voting in Ohio, Iowa, and Wisconsin. Ohio early vote turnout is higher for Obama in 2008 than in Republican counties. He (Messina) said that this election is more diverse. Most new registrants are under 30. 2/3 of those who have early voted are women, African-Americans, and Latinos. Democrats are winning everywhere where there are in person early votes.”

Can Mitt Romney win this election? Yes, he can. Between voter suppression, voter ID laws, voter registration fraud, voting machine malfeasance, True the Vote intimidation of minorities, and a Campaign of Lies so surreal and epic I’m nominating him for a Political Razzie, it’s possible. Low information voters combined with voter disenfranchisement and a lot of dark money creates a toxic brew.

But not much of this is real. Mitt Romney doesn’t have momentum.

He has never had momentum. What Mitt Romney has is a lot of big money behind him, propping him up and selling his lies to an unsuspecting public. He also has a media hungry for a horse race and seemingly incapable of keeping up with his repositioning and denials of his own policies. Is that dangerous and can he win? Yes, and yes. Does he have “momentum”? No.

What we have here is a Mittocracy rather than a meritocracy; it’s all about the myth, the con, the illusion.

* Screen-Shot-2012-10-24-at-12.22.41-PM-300x240.png (108.91 KB, 300x240 - viewed 384 times.)
Most Active Member
Offline Offline

Posts: 10871

« Reply #99 on: Oct 25, 2012, 07:24 AM »

Obama’s Job Approval Jumps To Highest Point Since 2011

By: Ray Medeiros October 24th, 2012

According to Gallup, President Obama’s job approval rating has jumped to 53% since the third presidential debate. The significance of this is two fold. First, the jump occurred very close to the election. This is one hurdle cleared in order for the President to be re elected decisively.

Second, this is President Obama’s highest approval rating by Gallup since Bin Laden’s death in May of 2011. President Obama realized a huge surge in the job approval ratings when he announced he had Bin Laden killed. It surged to 53% in May of 2011.

This poll is also the first poll after Romney’s “leading from behind” debate performance. People have realized two things. Romney has no plan on foreign policy, and Obama is doing his job fairly well. It’s all a big fail on Romney’s part.

Job approval ratings have been the gauge of past elections. Most Presidents do not get re elected if their job approval numbers are below 50%, and most get re-elected if their job approval numbers are above 50%.

The latest exception was George W Bush, who had a job approval of less than 50% on Election Day 2004.
Most Active Member
Offline Offline

Posts: 10871

« Reply #100 on: Oct 25, 2012, 07:26 AM »

Disastrous News for the GOP as Obama Leads Romney in Three New Ohio Polls

By: Jason Easley October 24th, 2012

Three new polls of the critical swing state of Ohio all agree. Barack Obama is currently leading Mitt Romney in the Buckeye State.

Obama leads Romney in the Time poll 49%-44%. Time’s polling also revealed that there are two races going on in Ohio right now. Among voters who haven’t voted yet, the candidates are tied 45%-45%, but President Obama is dominating Romney with early voters 60%-30%. Obama is leading with women 56%-37%, while Romney is leading with men, 51%-42%. Romney is leading with white voters (49-43), while Obama is leading big with young voters and minorities. Romney’s negative message about the economy isn’t working in Ohio, as 54% of those surveyed believed the country is on the wrong track, but 51% also believe that their state is on the right track.

Obama leads Romney 47%-44% in the SurveyUSA poll. Much like the Time poll, Romney leads with men (49%-42%), while Obama holds a double digit lead with women (52%-40%). Obama leads by nine points (49%-40%) with voters age 18-49, and Romney holds a small three point lead (49%-46%) with those over age 50. Romney leads Obama by just 5 points with white voters (49%-44), and the president leads 70%-22% with African-Americans.

A Lake Research poll has Obama leading 46%-44% in Ohio. The poll found that Romney is struggling with men in the state. The Republican leads Obama with men by just a four point margin, 47%-43%. Obama leads Romney with women 49%-41%. Romney’s biggest problem in the state is that more Ohio voters have a negative view (49%) than have a positive view (47%) of him. In contrast, 52% have a favorable view of Obama and 44% have an unfavorable view of the president.

Even Republican pollster Rasmussen has Romney tied with Obama (48%-48%). Rasmussen polls contain a 4 point Republican bias, so when the extra four points are factored in, even the Republican poll is in line with the other three. In total, four new polls of the state of Ohio were released today, and Mitt Romney is leading none of them.

If Obama’s domination of early voting continues, and the candidates split the vote on Election Day, the president will carry Ohio. A key number to pay attention is the amount of the total vote in the state that comes in through early voting. In 2008, 33% of the vote in Ohio was done during early voting. If this percentage is higher in 2012, it bodes well for President Obama.

Mitt Romney is not performing strongly enough with white and male voters to offset the big Obama advantages with young people, women, and African-Americans. Romney can’t split or narrowly win Ohio white voters and men. He will have to beat Obama by double digits to even have a chance of winning the state.

For those of you who are concerned about the voting machines in Ohio, keep in mind that an election has to be close for fraud to have an impact. Election fraud can really only shift a very close contest. A five point lead is too much to be manipulated. People must be vigilant, but the best way to ease election fraud concerns is for President Obama to build up a lead so large in early voting that it can’t be taken away.

The Romney campaign continues to claim that they are gaining ground in Ohio, but as we draw closer to Election Day, Obama’s lead continues to remain at a roughly 3-5 point margin. It becomes difficult to impossible for Romney to win without winning Ohio. The Republican candidate has no choice but to keep competing there; however, it is looking more and more like Mitt Romney is spinning his wheels and getting nowhere fast in Ohio.
Most Active Member
Offline Offline

Posts: 10871

« Reply #101 on: Oct 25, 2012, 07:30 AM »

National Organization for Women Says Richard Mourdock is Romney Unmasked

By: Sarah Jones October 24th, 2012

National Organization for Women President Terry O’Neill issued a statement Wednesday saying that Republican Indiana Senatorial candidate Richard Mourdock (pregnancies from rape are “God’s will”) is “Romney Unmasked”, noting that Romney has not yet withdrawn his endorsement of Mourdock or asked the Republican to stop running his ads.

Terry O’Neill writes, “Last night Republican candidate Richard Mourdock confirmed what Todd Akin brought to light earlier — that the radical fringe currently in control of the GOP holds misogynistic and deeply unpopular views about women, rape and reproductive rights. Anyone who thinks Republican presidential nominee Mitt Romney is a moderate who stands apart from this fringe should think again.

During a debate for Indiana’s open U.S. Senate seat, Mourdock asserted that when a woman becomes pregnant from a rape “that’s something God intended.” Romney attempted to distance himself from Mourdock’s pronouncement, but he has yet to withdraw his endorsement of the candidate or call for him to stop running a TV ad that features Romney expressing support for Mourdock.

Voters should understand that Mourdock and Romney are soul-mates who think they know what’s best for women. They seek to re-victimize rape survivors, control women’s reproductive lives by criminalizing abortion and blocking their access to contraception, and deny women autonomy over their bodies and lives. Mourdock is simply Romney unmasked, and their brand of governing is a threat to women in Indiana and throughout the United States.”

Tea Party Republican Senatorial candidate Richard Mourdock is in hot water. Hrafnkell Haraldsson reported this morning:

“Mourdock, who had previously compared the Chrysler bailout to slavery, a tortured comparison making him Abraham Lincoln to Obama’s Stephen Douglas, said Tuesday that when a woman becomes pregnant because of rape, it is something God intended:
‘I struggled with it myself for a long time, but I came to realize that life is that gift from God. And, I think, even when life begins in that horrible situation of rape, that it is something that God intended to happen.’”

Romney tried to distance himself with this lame side step, “Gov. Romney disagrees with Richard Mourdock’s comments, and they do not reflect his views.” But he has yet to even withdraw his endorsement of a man who thinks rape is something God intended.

NOW isn’t having any of that. It appears that Mourdock has unmasked Romney’s true feelings about women, finally. We heard the stories, and now we’re hearing the deafening silence of a coward who also refused to condemn Rush Limbaugh over his Sandra Fluke comments.

Romney’s running mate, Paul Ryan, has donated $5,000.00 to Mourdock’s campaign via his PAC.

Need fodder for your nightmares? Here’s American Bridge’s newest video showing voters what a Romney-Mourdock partnership would look like in Washington. WARNING: Offensive content.

UltraViolet has joined the pushback with a petition to urge Mitt Romney to withdraw his endorsement of Mourdock. They write, “Governor Romney: If you want women’s votes, you need to stop supporting candidates with extreme views on rape. You must withdraw your endorsement of Richard Mourdock and Republican campaign committees must stop supporting him right away.”


President Obama Sets Mourdock Straight: Rape is Rape and It’s a Crime

By: Sarah Jones October 25th, 2012

President Obama was on “The Tonight Show with Jay Leno” last night. After Obama finished off Donald Trump with the quip, “This all dates back to when we were growing up in Kenya,” Leno read Republican Senate candidate Robert Mourdock’s comment about rape is something God intended to happen and all life is a gift even if it comes from rape.

The President replied that “rape is rape” and this is the reason why mostly male politicians should stay out of women’s health care decisions.


LENO: The senate candidate Richard Mourdock. He made a statement today — or I — or at least I saw it today. I want quote what he said. He said — he was asked about rape and — “I struggled with it, myself, for a long time, but I came to realize life is a gift from God. And even if life begins in a horrible situation of rape, it is something God intended to happen ” which — I mean, this seems like we’re back to Todd Akin time again.

PRESIDENT OBAMA: Well — you know, I don’t know how these guys come up with these ideas. Let me make a very simple proposition.

LENO: Mm-hm.

PRESIDENT OBAMA: Rape is rape. It is a crime. And so, these various distinctions about rape and, you know — don’t make too much sense to me. Don’t make any sense to me. The second thing this underscores, though, this is exactly why you don’t want a bunch of politicians — mostly male — making decisions about women’s health care decisions. I — women are capable of making these decisions in consultation with their partners, with their doctors. And, you know, for politicians to want to intrude in this stuff, often times without any information, is a huge problem. And this is obviously a part of what’s at stake in this election. You’ve got a Supreme Court that — you know, typically a president is gonna have probably another couple of appointments during the course of his term. And, you know, Roe vs. Wade is probably hanging in the balance. You’ve got issues like Planned Parenthood where, you know, that organization provides millions of women cervical cancer screenings, mammograms — all kinds of basic healthcare.

LENO: Right.

PRESIDENT OBAMA: And so I think it’s really important for us to — to understand that women are capable of making these decisions and that these are not just women’s issues. These are family issues.

The audience showed their entusiasm for Obama’s position with clapping and cheering. It obviously resonated deeply.

Robert Mourdock’s comments reveal that the extremism of the Republican Party is not contained to Paul Ryan and Todd Akin of forcible rape and legitimate rape infamy. While people who pay attention to politics know that the Republican Party’s current platform is as extreme as Ryan, Akin and Mourdock, the general public doesn’t know that. But now with Mourdock, the sense that this extremism is a part of the GOP instead of a fringe element may start to stick.

Mitt Romney endorsed Mourdock in an ad that started playing on Monday and Romney has yet to ask Mourdock to apologize let alone pull his ad. What kind of leader would Mitt Romney be? He can’t even stand up to a man who isn’t even elected yet. He can’t stand up to Rush Limbaugh.

Romney is starting to look like the appeaser he is, and the country doesn’t need a President appeasing the extremists in his party – especially not the current tea steeped Republican party. We have had just about enough of them over the last two years as they proposed record setting levels of anti-woman legislation around the country.

Rape is rape. It’s a crime. It’s also none of Mourdock’s, Romney’s, Akin’s, or Ryan’s business, though I am wondering why they seem so concerned with the result of rape instead of trying to stop rape from happening. The Violence Against Women Act is still sitting unsigned in the House where Ryan obstructs jobs bills in order to control women’s bodies.

Clearly a Romney administration would be taking orders from men who know nothing about women, reproduction, science, or medicine because nothing says modern day Republican like know nothings in charge of the one thing they know the least about.
Most Active Member
Offline Offline

Posts: 10871

« Reply #102 on: Oct 25, 2012, 07:32 AM »

Obama on Fire in Iowa: Calls Out Romney’s Bait and Switch

By: Sarah Jones October 24th, 2012

President Obama was on fire in Davenport, Iowa Wednesday on the first stop of his two-day, non-stop “America Forward!” tour. Obama reminded voters that Romney’s economic plans don’t add up, referring to the Washington Post calling the Republican’s jobs plan a “bait and switch.” The President emphasized the issue of trust, saying, “(T)here’s no more serious issue in a presidential campaign than trust.”

Watch here: http://www.youtube.com/watch?feature=player_embedded&v=hsKyNWQI5Ys

Listen, smart people who don’t have a dog in this fight, independent analysts, economists, they took out their pencils, they had their green eye shades, turns out Governor Romney’s economic plan is a sketchy deal. The results aren’t something you’d want to write home about. The Washington Post called his jobs plan a “bait-and-switch.” The bait is the promise that his plan creates 12 million jobs. The switch is the fact that his plan doesn’t create 12 million jobs. In fact, it won’t even create jobs right now.

Then, Governor Romney wants to spend $5 trillion on tax cuts that favor the wealthy, $2 trillion more on defense spending that our military isn’t asking for, and he wants you to believe that he can do all this without adding to the deficit or raising middle-class taxes. The problem is, you’d need to invent a new kind of math to actually make this true. The arithmetic does not work.

So we know Governor Romney’s jobs plan doesn’t really create jobs. His deficit plan doesn’t reduce the deficit. We joke about Romnesia. But all of this speaks to something important: trust. There’s no more serious issue on a presidential campaign than trust. Trust matters.


The President has laid out a specific plan to contrast with Romney’s ever-changing rhetoric on his own policies. President Obama focused on trust as an elevated discussion about Romnesia. Mitt Romney won’t disclose his tax returns, he won’t tell the American people what his tax plan is, he wouldn’t be honest about his foreign policy in the last debate, and he reverses positions faster than you can fact-check him on his last statement.

The question I always come up against with Mitt Romney’s failure to disclose the truth is why? There can only be one reason, and that is that he knows his policies aren’t popular. They won’t get him elected. And so over and over again, on policies from women’s issues to jobs plans to war with Iran, Romney tells his base one thing and reverses course for the general public.

Which does he mean? Hard to know, but the folks he surrounds himself with and choses for plum positions tell us that he is aligned with the Bush Cheney Rumsfeld folks in foreign policy and the Paul Ryan Todd Akin tea party types on social issues. Romney is an extremist because that’s what he needed to be to get where he is today.

There is not one major issue that Romney has been transparent about and faithful to. He has changed on every single major issue raised in this campaign, talking out of both sides of his mouth.

Trust matters, and so do words.
Most Active Member
Offline Offline

Posts: 10871

« Reply #103 on: Oct 25, 2012, 07:36 AM »

Texas Declares War on UN Vote Monitors

By: Hrafnkell Haraldsson October 25th, 2012

Reuters reported yesterday that Texas Attorney General Greg Abbott has warned the OCSE to stay away from Texas polling places. I wrote the other day about the Republican reaction to the presence of these international observers. The agents of voter suppression to not want witnesses to their illegal activities.

So in a move that is likely to be repeated in other Red States, Abbott says he will take legal action if the OCSE refuses to follow state law. Not federal law, mind you, but state law. The treaty in question, of course, was not made by the State of Texas, but by the United States of America.

Abbott said,

    “They act like they may not be subject to Texas law and our goal all along is to make clear to them that when they’re in Texas, they’re subject to Texas law, and we’re not giving them an exemption.”

He claims, “Our concern is that this isn’t some benign observation but something intended to be far more prying and maybe even an attempt to suppress voter integrity.”

Only in Texas, is the subtitle here. These Red States sometimes forget we are a nation, a union of states under a single federal government and that individual states do not make foreign policy decisions, sign treaties, or decide which obligations to adhere to. You might be able to ignore biblical injunctions at will but states can’t ignore international treaties.

So Abbott sent a letter to the Office for Democratic Institutions and Human Rights (ODIHR) and told them that OSCE vote monitors were not allowed by Texas state law to enter polling places:

    “While it remains unclear exactly what your monitoring is intended to achieve, or precisely what tactics you will use to achieve the proposed monitoring, OSCE has stated publicly that it will visit polling stations on Election Day as part of its monitoring plan.”

Abbott’s letter included a warning:

    “It may be a criminal offense for OSCE’s representatives to maintain a presence within 100 feet of a polling place’s entrance. Failure to comply with these requirements could subject the OSCE’s representatives to criminal prosecution for violating state law.”

You can almost hear his outrage: “Now, how the hell are we gonna suppress them darkies and greasers from voting if we got the UN watchin’?”

In a tweet, he did what Texans always seem to do, and drew a comparison with the days of the Alamo, in this case, the Battle of Gonzales in 1835. In that battle, Mexican troops attempted to confiscate a cannon and the Texans raised a flag over it saying, “Come and take it”:

     ”UN poll watchers can’t interfere w/ Texas elections,” he tweeted. “I’ll bring criminal charges if needed. Official letter posted soon. #comeandtakeit ”

Can we get any more melodramatic than that? Well, they do say everything is bigger in Texas. That apparently includes bullshit.

It bears mentioning here that Texas’ voter ID law, which Attorney General Eric H. Holder Jr. called a “poll tax,”  was blocked in federal court on August 30 of this year and that Abbott plans to appeal it to the Supreme Court. The Washington Post reported with regards to that event that,

    the U.S. District Court in Washington ruled that Texas had failed to show that the statute would not harm the voting rights of minorities in the state. In addition, the judges found that evidence indicated that the cost of obtaining a photo ID to vote would fall most heavily on African American and Hispanic voters.

    Evidence submitted by Texas to prove that its law did not discriminate was “unpersuasive, invalid, or both,” David S. Tatel, a judge on the U.S. Court of Appeals for the District of Columbia Circuit, wrote in the panel’s 56-page opinion. Voting Rights Act cases must be decided by a special panel of three federal judges.

It is hardly surprising then that Abbott should react so violently to the presence of those whose task it is to make sure that Texas is not going all cowboy on minority voters. Remember that the Texas law was blocked in federal court, and then look at what Abbott told ODIHR/OCSE:

    “The OSCE may be entitled to its opinions about Voter ID laws, but your opinion is legally irrelevant in the United States, where the Supreme Court has already determined that Voter ID laws are constitutional.”

Apparently, Abbott feels no more constrained by facts than he does by the law.

Frantic as ever to keep the light from shining on Texas as it bullies the vote into line for Mitt Romney’s plutocratic theocracy, Texas Secretary of State Hope Andrade wrote to OSCE/ODIHR on Tuesday, saying,

    “We have had a long and productive relationship with OSCE and election process observers,” The Texas Tribune reports Andrade as saying that the observation program “has provided valuable insights into the administrations of elections in various political systems and contexts. The exchange of information establishing best practices has been important and insightful and, up to now, completely devoid of any partisanship.”

So it is bipartisan to want a fair election process? There you have it, right out of the horse’s ass…er, mouth. At least Andrade had the cojones to admit it, if no other Republican will, though I’m sure that wasn’t her intention at all.

In support of his renegade attorney general and secretary of state, Governor Rick “Pray for Rain” Perry tweeted Tuesday,

    ‏”No UN monitors/inspectors will be part of any TX election process; I commend @TXsecofstate for swift action to clarify issue.”

Needless to say, the OCSE is not impressed by Texas bluster. In a press release Tuesday, the organization had this to say:

    Ambassador Janez Lenarčič, the Director of the OSCE Office for Democratic Institutions and Human Rights (ODIHR), expressed his grave concern today over the threat of criminal prosecution of OSCE/ODIHR election observers.

    This threat, contained in an open letter from the Attorney General of Texas, is at odds with the established good co-operation between OSCE/ODIHR observers and state authorities across the United States, including in Texas, Lenarčič said, adding that it is also contrary to the country’s obligations as an OSCE participating State.

    The ODIHR Director shared his concerns in a letter to United States Secretary of State Hillary Clinton.

    “The threat of criminal sanctions against OSCE/ODIHR observers is unacceptable,” Lenarčič said. “The United States, like all countries in the OSCE, has an obligation to invite ODIHR observers to observe its elections.”

    The ODIHR Director also stressed that any concerns or reports that the election observers intended to influence or interfere with the election process were groundless. He underlined that OSCE/ODIHR election observers adhere to all national laws and regulations, as well as a strict code of conduct.

    “Our observers are required to remain strictly impartial and not to intervene in the voting process in any way,” Lenarčič said. “They are in the United States to observe these elections, not to interfere in them.”

    The ODIHR limited election observation mission for the 2012 general elections in the United States consists of a core team of 13 experts, from 10 OSCE participating States, based in Washington D.C., and 44 long-term observers deployed throughout the country. These are the sixth United States elections the Office has observed, without incident, since 2002.

Only Red State would think it makes sense to say, as they do, that because the OCSE has no binding authority over anyone they should not be allowed in polling places. If they can’t affect the outcome of the election, as even Red State admits, then what harm in letting them observe? Got something to hide, guys? Of course, Red State also thinks Richard Mourdock is the victim of a left-wing media witch hunt, if that helps put things in perspective.

Let’s face it: rationality is not a conservative strong suit this election cycle or at any time in the past decade.

On that subject, it is funny from the outside looking in that Texas conservatives love to appeal to the Alamo at every opportunity. They have completely lost sight of the fact that they have nothing in common with the defenders of the Alamo, who fought to free themselves from tyranny, but with General Antonio López de Santa Anna, who sought to impose it.

They forget, when they try to suppress the Latino vote, that among the defenders of the Alamo were about a dozen Tejanos, as they were called. In fact, the Tejano contingent boasted the only six defenders actually born in Texas: Juan Abamillo, Juan A. Badillo, Carlos Espalier, Gregorio Esparza, Antonio Fuentes, and Andrés Nava.

Rick Perry’s regime in Texas isn’t defending the Alamo, it’s attacking it.

Remember the Alamo indeed.


Texas Attorney General Greg Abbott

* Greg-Abbott.jpg (73.09 KB, 500x291 - viewed 394 times.)
Most Active Member
Offline Offline

Posts: 10871

« Reply #104 on: Oct 25, 2012, 09:23 AM »

Colin Powell Rips Mitt Romney’s Foreign Policy while Endorsing Obama

By: Jason Easley October 25th, 2012

While endorsing President Obama today, Gen. Colin Powell ripped Mitt Romney’s ‘moving target’ foreign policy.

Here is the video: http://www.youtube.com/watch?feature=player_embedded&v=EBzCvfw54bM


    POWELL: I signed on for a long patrol with President Obama and I don’t think this is the time to make such a sudden change. And not only am I not comfortable with what Governor Romney is proposing for his economic plan, I have concerns about his views on foreign policy. The Governor, who was speaking on Monday night at the debate, was saying things that were quite different from what he said earlier. So I’m not quite sure which Governor Romney we would be getting with respect to foreign policy.

    O’DONNELL: What concerns do you have about Governor Romney’s foreign policy?

    POWELL: Well, it’s hard to fix it. I mean, it’s a moving target. One day he has a certain strong view about staying in Afghanistan, but then on Monday night he agrees with the withdrawal. Same thing in Iraq. On almost every issue that was discussed on Monday night, Governor Romney agreed with the President with some nuances. But this is quite a different set of foreign policy views than he had earlier in the campaign. And my concern, which I’ve expressed previously in a public way, is that sometimes I don’t sense that he has thought through these issues as thoroughly as he should have, and he gets advice from his campaign staff that he then has to adjust to modify as he goes along.

    ROSE: Are you concerned about the people that are advising Governor Romney?

    POWELL: I think there’s some very, very strong neo-conservative views that are presented by the Governor that I have some trouble with. There are other issues as well, not just the economy and foreign policy. I’m more comfortable with President Obama and his administration when it comes to issues like what are we going to do about climate, what are we going to do about immigration? What are we going to do about education? Lots of things like that. I do not want to see the new Obamacare plan thrown off the table. It has issues, you have to fix some things in that plan. But what I see when I look at that plan is 30 million of our fellow citizens will now be covered by insurance. And I think that’s good. We’re one of the few nations in the world, with our size, population and wealth, that does not have universal health care.

Republicans had been quietly hoping for much of the year that Powell would endorse Mitt Romney, but once John Bolton and the Bush neo-con crew took over Romney’s foreign policy, there was absolutely zero chance of that happening. Since Powell was Secretary of State under George W. Bush, his 2008 endorsement was embraced by Obama supporters, but met with skepticism by some parts of the left who can never forgive him for his role in the lead up to the invasion of Iraq.

In 2012, it is more obvious that Gen. Powell has some serious disagreements with the neo-con vision of foreign policy that is personified by Mitt Romney. Hopefully, Colin Powell’s endorsement will prompt some Americans to see past Romney’s foreign policy me too snow job at the third debate, and think about what a potential Romney presidency would mean in terms of foreign policy.

Domestic policy dominated the 2000 election too, but it was George W. Bush’s foreign policy that led the country into two wars that we are still trying to fully extract ourselves from.

The reason why Mitt Romney changed his position on preemptive war in the third debate is because he knows that war is unpopular with the American people. Colin Powell lived the nightmare of dealing with a president who didn’t think things through on foreign policy up close and personally.

Gen. Powell is warning the country what a Romney presidency will bring. Unless Americans want more war, they had better listen.
Pages: 1 ... 5 6 [7] 8 9 ... 12   Go Up
Jump to: