Opinion on Barack Obama (USA Pres.)

["User"]

Unfortunately. 

Care to elaborate?

Though I meant to say "Europe should police its own Balkhans backyard!".

Maybe that particular operation was primarily led by the Europeans within NATO?  I'm not sure as that was years ago 

...totally!  We are pestered by these foreign nations demanding America to help them. 

We then go to help them, we're declared "Imperialists, trying to police the world", we ignore them, we're "Selfish capitalist cowards"...

Fools...

Well...weapons are a pretty high American export.  You make good money there. 

Obama has got to quit with his world wide "Apology Tour".

Ehhhh...not sure I'd go THAT far.

but...America helped Europe in 2 world wars...and slowed the expansion of the Soviet Union as best it could in the Cold War...

BACK OT:

What really makes me mad about Obama is he keeps bailing out these crooked as banks, letting the greedy execs pocket the money and use it as a golden parachute, while all the homeowners face foreclosure, and the people lose more jobs.  The American Homeowner needs bailing out, not corrupt incompetent banks and predatory lenders.

And you guys got involved late with both of them - especially World War 1 where you didn't enter until 1917.  Oh well, better late then never I guess.

I agree with your statement regarding the bailouts 100%. 

Sadly, Barack would never respect our troops...he never fought in a war, so he doesn't care.  He's such a hypocrite, saying "We're bringing our boys home!", then He sends more troops into Afghanistan.  And the squealing wretched pinhead worshipers of Barack praise him for it, yet they booed Bush for sending troops in there.

For the record: "Why do politicians lie?" Answer:  "To get elected."

And from what polls I've seen from all sides of the political spectrum the vast majority of Americans oppose war right now in the Middle East and are opposed to more troops being sent.  Booing Bush when he sent the troops in? Back when Bush was in power when the war started (shortly after 9/11) it was much more popular among Americans and Bush's approval rating was in the 80%'s and the entrance into the war was welcomed by the majority of Americans.  That was during my college days and I know for sure I don't remember that much anti-war sentiment.

Military bailouts?

No, for big private enterprises like the auto and banking industries.

My Uncle thinks Obama is perfect, and can do no wrong...my Uncle is so stupid.  xD

Well, his approval rating has been dropping since he got elected...so maybe there is a bit of truth to that? XD

Uhm... It was Bush who did most of the bailouts.

Anyway, while I agree with you in the micro, when you look at the macro, unfortunately, bailing out some firms is a must due to their sheer size. If AIG, for instance, had failed, the majority of US banks would have also failed. Large numbers of bank failures would leave the economy in ruin. I'm usually all for letting a company fail if it screws up, but if that failure has massive collateral damage, then the proper move is to prevent that from happening. You either make the collateral damage whole, or you prevent the failure. Both would be considered a "bailout."

Of course, my philosophy here is that government should not allow companies to get so large that their failure could jeopardize the economy. Too big to fail is too big to exist. The proper course of action if the government steps in is to break the company up so that they can no longer fail in a way that threatens the economy. Of course, enforcing the Sherman Anti-Trust Act would help as well.

I'm in agreement with this only if big "can't risk failing" companies pay back everything to the government and rules are in place to ensure stuff like this will never happen again.  Obama should be considerably tougher with the big companies and not get pushed around by them.

[Kursed]

The problem most people I know have with the US is that they think the Americans think that their way of doing things are better than those of other, western countries. Which make you awfully unpopular in a culture where those who stick out, both in good or bad ways, from the beige mass of meciocrity is shunned and looked down upon.

I honestly see most countries as equal to america as far as ways I mean even my dad likes it in england where they can shoot without a warrent or something like that. personnly America may be better in some ways ,but it's got it's bad sides too.

I have to use Nazi germany as a example here for this    many normal non -jewish people  really liked Nazi germany... and those who were jewish and outside of this said group didn't like nazi germany...

[Guest Julius Quasar]

Upon seeing Michelle Obama's trip to Spain, I'm pissed now.  We got recessions here, and yet she goes on her fancy trip, costing over $170,000 (at taxpayer expense, which I wouldn't mind if she were spending it in the USA), and saying she won't vacation in America because she hates America...She says "It's safe to vacation at the gulf", yet she won't go there.  There are plenty of nice places IN THE USA, that need that kind of vacationer's money, even Hawaii.  Obama misses the 100th Anniversary of the Boy Scouts Of America to go on that stupid talk show, "The View", and instead of comforting the families of the victims killed in the oil rig blasts in the gulf, he was...just wandering around on the gulf beaches, complaining about the bad smells.

The irony (and silver lining) is that the media lauded Obama as their messiah in '08 and early '09, now they're crucifying him.  I'm sure Obama will be a 1 term President.  :lol:

[Kursed]

Upon seeing Michelle Obama's trip to Spain, I'm pissed now.  We got recessions here, and yet she goes on her fancy trip, costing over $170,000 (at taxpayer expense, which I wouldn't mind if she were spending it in the USA), and saying she won't vacation in America because she hates America...She says "It's safe to vacation at the gulf", yet she won't go there.  There are plenty of nice places in AMERICA, that need that kind of vacationer's money, even Hawaii.  Obama misses the 100th Anniversary of the Boy Scouts Of America to go on that stupid talk show, "The View", and instead of comforting the families of the victims killed in the oil rig blasts in the gulf, he was...just wandering around on the gulf beaches, complaining about the bad smells.

The irony (and silver lining) is that the media lauded Obama as their messiah in '08 and early '09, now they're crucifying him.  I'm sure Obama will be a 1 term President. 

after all i've hear he's defintly a 1st and last time president.(WHERE"S ALL THIS MONEY COMEING FROM?!)

[DZComposer]

Upon seeing Michelle Obama's trip to Spain, I'm pissed now.  We got recessions here, and yet she goes on her fancy trip, costing over $170,000 (at taxpayer expense, which I wouldn't mind if she were spending it in the USA), and saying she won't vacation in America because she hates America...She says "It's safe to vacation at the gulf", yet she won't go there.  There are plenty of nice places IN THE USA, that need that kind of vacationer's money, even Hawaii.  Obama misses the 100th Anniversary of the Boy Scouts Of America to go on that stupid talk show, "The View", and instead of comforting the families of the victims killed in the oil rig blasts in the gulf, he was...just wandering around on the gulf beaches, complaining about the bad smells.

The irony (and silver lining) is that the media lauded Obama as their messiah in '08 and early '09, now they're crucifying him.  I'm sure Obama will be a 1 term President. 

Oh come on. All first families do that shit. Both Bushes did it. Reagan did it. Clinton did it. And suddenly it is wrong when Obama does it? Please...

As far as whether or not Obama will be a 1 term president will really depend on the economy. If it improves by 2012, He'll be re-elected. If not, he won't. If he wants to fix the economy, he needs to start listening to Paul Krugman and Robert Reich instead of Geithner and Summers.

Supply side economics doesn't work, ESPECIALLY in periods of high unemployment.

[Sapphire]

Obama is really just not doing anything but waisting money and putting us more in debt. :oops:

[Guest Julius Quasar]

Oh come on. All first families do that shit. Both Bushes did it. Reagan did it. Clinton did it. And suddenly it is wrong when Obama does it? Please...

I'm sorry, I thought we were entitled to our own opinions here. 

At least when the Reagans, Bushes, and Clintons did it, the economy wasn't like...this...

As far as whether or not Obama will be a 1 term president will really depend on the economy. If it improves by 2012, He'll be re-elected. If not, he won't. If he wants to fix the economy, he needs to start listening to Paul Krugman and Robert Reich instead of Geithner and Summers.

I doubt it will, and I doubt he will listen to them.

Supply side economics doesn't work, ESPECIALLY in periods of high unemployment.

Even so...not everyone knows that, and people are pissed off...with people losing their homes, and seeing their leaders publicly doing these lavish vacations, it sends the message of old France; "Let them eat cake!".

[Konchaski]

Oh come on. All first families do that shit. Both Bushes did it. Reagan did it. Clinton did it. And suddenly it is wrong when Obama does it? Please...

As far as whether or not Obama will be a 1 term president will really depend on the economy. If it improves by 2012, He'll be re-elected. If not, he won't. If he wants to fix the economy, he needs to start listening to Paul Krugman and Robert Reich instead of Geithner and Summers.

Supply side economics doesn't work, ESPECIALLY in periods of high unemployment.

I have no other thing to say other than - this. All the other families did vacations like this. I'm sick of it too, but I doubt it's going to change because it's a 'tradition'. I do support some ideas Obama has, but a lot of the ways he carried it out just pretty much make my head meet my desk. Repeatedly.

Example: The healthcare fiasco. He should have made a plan himself and not let congress bicker about it to create the monstrosity we have now. I'm more irritated at the law that says there  federal requirement that most people have health insurance or face penalties starting in 2014.  I think there should be an affordable healthcare option available for everyone before we start penalizing people who can't afford it.

I'm all for the public option on some level, but on the principle. The practicality in me? Says we are trillions of dollars in debt. How are we supposed to provide efficient health care when we don't have any money?  Not to mention the issue with earning caps for doctors putting them in perpetual debt. I think everyone knows that to get through medical school you accumulate a LOT of debt in the United States, and the high salaries doctors get? Are paid are what helps pay that off.  Basically it sounds awesome in theory, a great idea, but in practice? I'm not sure how it'd work out completely - I know for sure states with the most population will get the most focus. (Like New York, California, Illinois. Definitely the New England States and Mid-Atlantic states.) but as for states in the middle, I don't think we're going to get much at all.

It is not the waiting 'lines' and killing old grandma issue of it, they're absolutely not going to do it. We have to look at the public health option in other countries, basically the most severe would obviously be taken in first while someone with a very mild case that can get worse will get pushed back with our population. If we are to have the public health option, I honestly think perhaps the state itself would be in charge but then you get political fuckery like in California and Illinois on both ends of the spectrum.

If anything - in my personal opinion? The government needs to work on the drug industry. Two hundred dollars for drugs here is only twenty dollars in India and that is ridiculous! I'll tell you something, working once as an accountant at a drug firm all that money is not going to medical research or anything. In fact, you're giving those guys in charge a new yacht for them to enjoy most of the time. Many people NEED these medications to function and SURVIVE - yet this is getting ignored because politics are often getting money from these big companies. 

[Guest Julius Quasar]

I have no other thing to say other than - this. All the other families did vacations like this. I'm sick of it too, but I doubt it's going to change because it's a 'tradition'. I do support some ideas Obama has, but a lot of the ways he carried it out just pretty much make my head meet my desk. Repeatedly.

Example: The healthcare fiasco. He should have made a plan himself and not let congress bicker about it to create the monstrosity we have now. I'm more irritated at the law that says there  federal requirement that most people have health insurance or face penalties starting in 2014.  I think there should be an affordable healthcare option available for everyone before we start penalizing people who can't afford it.

I'm all for the public option on some level, but on the principle. The practicality in me? Says we are trillions of dollars in debt. How are we supposed to provide efficient health care when we don't have any money?  Not to mention the issue with earning caps for doctors putting them in perpetual debt. I think everyone knows that to get through medical school you accumulate a LOT of debt in the United States, and the high salaries doctors get? Are paid are what helps pay that off.  Basically it sounds awesome in theory, a great idea, but in practice? I'm not sure how it'd work out completely - I know for sure states with the most population will get the most focus. (Like New York, California, Illinois. Definitely the New England States and Mid-Atlantic states.) but as for states in the middle, I don't think we're going to get much at all.

It is not the waiting 'lines' and killing old grandma issue of it, they're absolutely not going to do it. We have to look at the public health option in other countries, basically the most severe would obviously be taken in first while someone with a very mild case that can get worse will get pushed back with our population. If we are to have the public health option, I honestly think perhaps the state itself would be in charge but then you get political -F-Bomb-ery like in California and Illinois on both ends of the spectrum.

If anything - in my personal opinion? The government needs to work on the drug industry. Two hundred dollars for drugs here is only twenty dollars in India and that is ridiculous! I'll tell you something, working once as an accountant at a drug firm all that money is not going to medical research or anything. In fact, you're giving those guys in charge a new yacht for them to enjoy most of the time. Many people NEED these medications to function and SURVIVE - yet this is getting ignored because politics are often getting money from these big companies. 

THANK you! :yes:

[Kursed]

it's just like video games from large corporations (nintendo coming to mind here) their to bent on money to  put any quality in there work.

what we need is some Independant politictains ones not controled by large corporations.

but that is likely not going to happen because of one simple factor Money.

[Guest Julius Quasar]

it's just like video games from large corporations (nintendo coming to mind here) their to bent on money to  put any quality in there work.

Like Nintendo was doing in the '80's with the NES games based on movies like Back To The Future, Rambo, and Dick Tracy.

Yeah, but I think Barack doesn't wanna go for another term. 

He barely wanted the first term.  :trollface:

[DZComposer]

Obama is really just not doing anything but waisting money and putting us more in debt.

The problem with this is that we are currently in an economic slump where people aren't spending money. The government is the spender of last resort, and when people aren't spending, the government needs to spend to keep the economy afloat.

Does it increase the debt? Yes. Do we need to be concerned with the national debt overall? Yes. But, we also need to prioritize. When unemployment is hovering around 10%, it is not time to start cutting social safety nets in the name of deficit reduction. These people need jobs so that they can start paying income tax again.

Federal government debt is not like consumer or business debt, or even like state government debt. We can get out of it by taxes, tariffs, and the like. But, we also get out of it when we export goods, and through inflation to a degree. Basically, the debt is not as big of a problem as certain very vocal people with their own political prospects make it out to be. Is it something we need to pay attention to? Yes. Is it an immediate national crisis? No.

Now, let's get to waste. I agree that we don't need to be doing wasteful spending right now, but calling things like spending on jobs programs, loans to manufacturing businesses (which earn interest and end up turning a profit, BTW), and bottom-up stimulus waste demonstrates a misunderstanding of what that money is doing. This spending helps people have money to spend themselves, which in turn drives economic recovery, which leads to greater tax revenue down the road. IE, it is an investment in the populace.

Helping the manufacturing sector during this critical economic time is a good investment because exporting goods will help us pay down the national debt later. Since most of these so-called "bailouts" were loans, they're even bringing in interest income themselves, so there really isn't a downside to this. We should also use tax and tariff policy to disincentivize outsourcing of manufacturing. Trade is good, but our companies making products using foreign labor is not so good for the workers in our own country. Manufacturing exports are the best killer of national debt. Our manufacturing exports are a major part of what eliminated the massive debt that we had after WWII (which we have yet to eclipse yet).

This kind of spending doesn't have immediate effects on the debt, but in the long-run it has a significant positive impact.

What is wasteful is spending on things that do not return money later. Tax cuts to the investor class are a prime example of this. Tax cuts don't plug holes in the debt, and cutting taxes in a period of high debt doesn't make sense. Cutting taxes also does not lead to higher employment.

Firstly, individual income tax does not effect a business' ability to spend on labor. Salaries of executives are considered an administrative expense. In accounting, this is subtracted from gross profit (revenue - cost of goods sold) along with various other expenses during the calculation of net income. If the executive is paid $1.5 million annually, that is what is deducted, even if the government taxes more of that 1.5 million from the employee as that is a personal tax, not an business tax. So, this taxation clearly does not affect the company from hiring more workers.

Here's a video that explains why executives are not the company: http://www.investopedia.com/video/play/fat-cat-ceo

So, what about business taxes, then?

Whether or not a business tax increase will cause a business to lay off people or not hire is largely dependent on the health of the firm. It can be argued that if a business cannot afford the tax increase, it likely would not survive anyway. You can also structure the tax credits so that if a firm does certain things, IE hiring US manufacturing labor, the increase can be offset.

Remember Net Income, which I mentioned earlier? Well, taxes are one of the expenses that determines net income. If net income is a net loss, then there is a problem. But, you can't look at one point and determine the health of the business. Do do that you need to look at trends. If the business has had net losses for the past 5 years, I would say that that business is not doing so hot.

Let's assume that our company is healthy and that the tax doesn't wipe out or net income (which it only would if we were teetering anyway).  What do we do with it? Well, we can either hang onto that money in case we need it later to buy equipment, hire people, etc. (this is called Retained Earnings) or we can pay out a dividend to our investors. Smart businessmen keep some retained earnings rather than spend it all on a dividend. You do have to pay dividends from time to time, as you want to retain your investors, but overall you want to have money in retained earnings so that you have some working capital to start the next period with, and to have some capital set aside for a rainy day. So, basically the tax cur into our retained earnings a bit, or we had to cut back on this year's dividend a bit.

Basically, the tax has a low overall effect on the company, and won't drive it into the ground. There are many metrics that are combined to determine the health of a company, and net income (the one taxes affect) is only one of them.

This is why high top marginal rates are actually good for companies AND for employment. If the top marginal rate makes it so that an executive making more that $2.5 million per year pays, say, a 90% tax on every dollar above $2.5 million (not the whole salary, just that over the mark), makes that $2.5 million mark the point of diminishing returns. The executives won't find such pay as attractive and will lead to a decrease overall in executive pay. This money now becomes part of companies' net incomes instead of going to individuals. This means more retained earnings. This could offset any increase in corporate taxes, and/or even provide more capital that can be used to update equipment and/or hire more workers. That is if the companies don't squander it on huge dividends, but that can be controlled with capital gains taxes.

See? Smart tax policy actually helps businesses because it incentivizes them to not blow huge sums of money on individuals, but rather to keep that money in equity and use it to advance the business rather than line individual pockets.

So, government spending on social safety nets as opposed to tax cuts is a lot more beneficial to the economy, and national budget, overall.

["User"]

Not sure if I mentioned this before but one the main reasons for Obama's recent slump in his approval rating (40% something) is that he's trying to bite off more then he can chew by focusing on a million things at once.  The ecomony, bar none, should be THE biggest concern right now for his administration and that is what he should be focusing the majority of his time on.  Health care initiatives and all that are good, but if people don't have jobs or job security AND not making money to actually SPEND to HELP THE ECONOMY RECOVER then they could really don't give a shit about it right now lol.  All my friends who voted for Obama in droves are agreeing that he's not serving his liberal base as much as he is trying to please everyone - hence why a lot of moderate democrats are trying to distance themselves from him during their midterm campagins.  Heck some of them don't even want to be seen in a picture with him...

I've never seen so much bi-partison bickering in my entire life following American politics during Obama's term so far - especially with the whole health care thing.  You can't just place the blame on Republicans when you have a sizable % of democrats who were opposed to Obama's initial health care reform package.  The fact that you easily control Congress and the Senate yet can't pass something like this easily....is just beyond me.

I agree though that Obama DOES need to spend money to help out the ecomony, but he should tackle one major thing at a time and thus not end up putting mediocre efforts into trying to do everything at once. 

Obama really better watch the upcoming midterm elections...they could very well end up biting him in the ass and unless the ecomony recovers quickly, I can easily see him being a single term president. >_>

[Guest Julius Quasar]

Not sure if I mentioned this before but one the main reasons for Obama's recent slump in his approval rating (40% something) is that he's trying to bite off more then he can chew by focusing on a million things at once.  The ecomony, bar none, should be THE biggest concern right now for his administration and that is what he should be focusing the majority of his time on.  Health care initiatives and all that are good, but if people don't have jobs or job security AND not making money to actually SPEND to HELP THE ECONOMY RECOVER then they could really don't give a shit about it right now lol.  All my friends who voted for Obama in droves are agreeing that he's not serving his liberal base as much as he is trying to please everyone - hence why a lot of moderate democrats are trying to distance themselves from him during their midterm campagins.  Heck some of them don't even want to be seen in a picture with him...

I've never seen so much bi-partison bickering in my entire life following American politics during Obama's term so far - especially with the whole health care thing.  You can't just place the blame on Republicans when you have a sizable % of democrats who were opposed to Obama's initial health care reform package.  The fact that you easily control Congress and the Senate yet can't pass something like this easily....is just beyond me.

I agree though that Obama DOES need to spend money to help out the ecomony, but he should tackle one major thing at a time and thus not end up putting mediocre efforts into trying to do everything at once. 

Obama really better watch the upcoming midterm elections...they could very well end up biting him in the ass and unless the ecomony recovers quickly, I can easily see him being a single term president. >_>

There you go!

[DZComposer]

Not sure if I mentioned this before but one the main reasons for Obama's recent slump in his approval rating (40% something) is that he's trying to bite off more then he can chew by focusing on a million things at once.  The ecomony, bar none, should be THE biggest concern right now for his administration and that is what he should be focusing the majority of his time on.  Health care initiatives and all that are good, but if people don't have jobs or job security AND not making money to actually SPEND to HELP THE ECONOMY RECOVER then they could really don't give a shit about it right now lol.  All my friends who voted for Obama in droves are agreeing that he's not serving his liberal base as much as he is trying to please everyone - hence why a lot of moderate democrats are trying to distance themselves from him during their midterm campagins.  Heck some of them don't even want to be seen in a picture with him...

I've never seen so much bi-partison bickering in my entire life following American politics during Obama's term so far - especially with the whole health care thing.  You can't just place the blame on Republicans when you have a sizable % of democrats who were opposed to Obama's initial health care reform package.  The fact that you easily control Congress and the Senate yet can't pass something like this easily....is just beyond me.

I agree though that Obama DOES need to spend money to help out the ecomony, but he should tackle one major thing at a time and thus not end up putting mediocre efforts into trying to do everything at once. 

Obama really better watch the upcoming midterm elections...they could very well end up biting him in the ass and unless the ecomony recovers quickly, I can easily see him being a single term president. >_>

Well, it's kind of hard to get things done when you have a senate minority that demands compromise, and when you do compromise, they still filibuster it. The healthcare legislation. for instance, eventually got whittled-down to something very close to what Nixon proposed and they still filibustered it and are calling for its repeal.

It's not that Obama is trying to do too much, it is that they Republicans are making everything he does, even things like low-level appointments, complete and utter battles of will.

I blame Harry Reid more than Obama for this, though. Reid should call their bluff and get out the cots. If they want to filibuster, they should REALLY filibuster.

It's not the president's fault things aren't getting done, it's congress. It has become quite clear that filibusters are the new normal for minority parties, this it is time to change the filibuster rule. The filibuster is not in the constitution, it is a senate rule. One that needs to be changed. They should lower it to 55 required to break it, and all filibusters should be REAL filibusters where the senators have to stand up and flap their yackers until everyone is tired of it and votes for cloture..

[Guest Julius Quasar]

It's not the president's fault things aren't getting done, it's congress. It has become quite clear that filibusters are the new normal for minority parties, this it is time to change the filibuster rule. The filibuster is not in the constitution, it is a senate rule. One that needs to be changed. They should lower it to 55 required to break it, and all filibusters should be REAL filibusters where the senators have to stand up and flap their yackers until everyone is tired of it and votes for cloture..

What worked in the 18th century doesn't really work for the 21st century. ;)

["User"]

Well, it's kind of hard to get things done when you have a senate minority that demands compromise, and when you do compromise, they still filibuster it. The healthcare legislation. for instance, eventually got whittled-down to something very close to what Nixon proposed and they still filibustered it and are calling for its repeal.

There's more to do with it though then Republicans "stalling tactics". In congress, Obama has failed to win over enough support in his own party for many high priority items. You can blame the minority in Congress or in the Senate all you want with filibusters but when you're the president and when you have people in your own party who don't want ANYTHING to do with you in their own mid-term elections when usually the president has a positive influence on their campaign...then yeah...he's fallen out of touch with members of his own party...not to mention the American people as has clearly been proven via any major poll done today.

It's not that Obama is trying to do too much, it is that they Republicans are making everything he does, even things like low-level appointments, complete and utter battles of will.

Because the two parties are so far apart on even the most basic issues that compromise is extremely difficult to do.  The Republicans are fighting hard right now though because they have the momentum going into the mid term elections and because the majority of the American people feel that Obama is out of touch with them.  That's reason enough for them to filibuster the f*ck out of everything. Does that make it right?  No, but politicians will do anything they can to get reelected.

I blame Harry Reid more than Obama for this, though. Reid should call their bluff and get out the cots. If they want to filibuster, they should REALLY filibuster.

All night long baby! Not sure if Reid will end up getting reelected though.

It's not the president's fault things aren't getting done, it's congress. It has become quite clear that filibusters are the new normal for minority parties, this it is time to change the filibuster rule. The filibuster is not in the constitution, it is a senate rule. One that needs to be changed. They should lower it to 55 required to break it, and all filibusters should be REAL filibusters where the senators have to stand up and flap their yackers until everyone is tired of it and votes for cloture..

I've already addressed the parts about how Obama isn't in touch with members of his own party enough to pass anything outside the Republicans filibusters so I'll leave that part.  And as Julius pointed out, what makes you think that, if this is the new norm when it comes to the Senate, if they change the rules that will affect anything down the line? Oh sure, it might help at first but something tell me that the minority in the Senate will find some way to continue to "stall and disrupt change".

The way I see American politics as a whole at times is that it's a broken system.  VERY broken.  Americans deserve more then two main political parties and having to choose between the "lesser of two evils"  While I like playing devil's advocate on many political issues I honestly believe that Obama, IMO, just ISN'T the best leader that I think the Democrats could have. :/

[Guest Julius Quasar]

The way I see American politics as a whole at times is that it's a broken system.  VERY broken.  Americans deserve more then two main political parties and having to choose between the "lesser of two evils"  While I like playing devil's advocate on many political issues I honestly believe that Obama, IMO, just ISN'T the best leader that I think the Democrats could have.

Exactly!  Hell, you may be Canadian, but you know America pretty damn well enough to be an American.

["User"]

Exactly!  Hell, you may be Canadian, but you know America pretty damn well enough to be an American.

Your country has more of an influence on us then the majority of you probably think.   I try and keep myself up to date on any current events about anything really.  I read from a lot of sources on ALL ends of the political spectrum.

[EazyIN]

My parents say the only reason Obama won, is so people could see a black president

["User"]

My parents say the only reason Obama won, is so people could see a black president

Given where you're from I can understand if there's some slight bias there. :P

[Guest Julius Quasar]

My parents say the only reason Obama won, is so people could see a black president

If people wanted to elect a president based on his [African-American] race, heck they could've elected Colin Powell. 

[DZComposer]

My parents say the only reason Obama won, is so people could see a black president

Sounds like someone's been listening to too much Limbaugh...

["User"]

Sounds like someone's been listening to too much Limbaugh...

That guys amazing...he should be the next GOP candidate for President. 

[Guest Julius Quasar]

That guys amazing...he should be the next GOP candidate for President. 

I agree!  :trollface: