Next best thing for the US (and perhaps the world)

[ginnyfizz]

He is an inexperienced man who comes from a background of privilege and has spent his career dabbling with either academe or politics and self aggrandizement.

So every politician ever. Okay.

 

Certainly not. They used to have other careers, and successful ones. Some served in the military, some as businessmen, some in the professions, but Obama as I understand it is an academic lawyer.

Here in the UK it used to be just the same, but now we have career politicians who have chosen Parliament as a first career choice and don't know squat about anything else.

[marharth]

He is an inexperienced man who comes from a background of privilege and has spent his career dabbling with either academe or politics and self aggrandizement.

So every politician ever. Okay.

 

Certainly not. They used to have other careers, and successful ones. Some served in the military, some as businessmen, some in the professions, but Obama as I understand it is an academic lawyer.

Here in the UK it used to be just the same, but now we have career politicians who have chosen Parliament as a first career choice and don't know squat about anything else.

So serving in the military makes you more experienced in politics how? Essentially every politician comes from a background of privilege.

[JimboUK]

He is an inexperienced man who comes from a background of privilege and has spent his career dabbling with either academe or politics and self aggrandizement.

So every politician ever. Okay.

 

Certainly not. They used to have other careers, and successful ones. Some served in the military, some as businessmen, some in the professions, but Obama as I understand it is an academic lawyer.

Here in the UK it used to be just the same, but now we have career politicians who have chosen Parliament as a first career choice and don't know squat about anything else.

So serving in the military makes you more experienced in politics how? Essentially every politician comes from a background of privilege.

 

It gives you experience in something other than politics, we have politicians lecturing businesses in this country yet few of them actually have any experience of it. Politics is a means to an end, not the end in itself, these days we're overrun with career politicians who care more for politics than they do the people. One of our most successful leaders, Margaret Thatcher was born above a grocers shop, she knew what the real world was like. Compare Thatcher to the gormless rich boy we have for PM now, he's a career politician and doesn't have a clue about the real world.

[marharth]

He is an inexperienced man who comes from a background of privilege and has spent his career dabbling with either academe or politics and self aggrandizement.

So every politician ever. Okay.

 

Certainly not. They used to have other careers, and successful ones. Some served in the military, some as businessmen, some in the professions, but Obama as I understand it is an academic lawyer.

Here in the UK it used to be just the same, but now we have career politicians who have chosen Parliament as a first career choice and don't know squat about anything else.

So serving in the military makes you more experienced in politics how? Essentially every politician comes from a background of privilege.

 

It gives you experience in something other than politics, we have politicians lecturing businesses in this country yet few of them actually have any experience of it. Politics is a means to an end, not the end in itself, these days we're overrun with career politicians who care more for politics than they do the people. One of our most successful leaders, Margaret Thatcher was born above a grocers shop, she knew what the real world was like. Compare Thatcher to the gormless rich boy we have for PM now, he's a career politician and doesn't have a clue about the real world.

My point is that Obama is no different from the other politicians we have now. Very few politicians actually have real experience, and if they do once they get into politics they stay. Most politicians are also from a privileged background now.

[JimboUK]

He is an inexperienced man who comes from a background of privilege and has spent his career dabbling with either academe or politics and self aggrandizement.

So every politician ever. Okay.

 

Certainly not. They used to have other careers, and successful ones. Some served in the military, some as businessmen, some in the professions, but Obama as I understand it is an academic lawyer.

Here in the UK it used to be just the same, but now we have career politicians who have chosen Parliament as a first career choice and don't know squat about anything else.

So serving in the military makes you more experienced in politics how? Essentially every politician comes from a background of privilege.

 

It gives you experience in something other than politics, we have politicians lecturing businesses in this country yet few of them actually have any experience of it. Politics is a means to an end, not the end in itself, these days we're overrun with career politicians who care more for politics than they do the people. One of our most successful leaders, Margaret Thatcher was born above a grocers shop, she knew what the real world was like. Compare Thatcher to the gormless rich boy we have for PM now, he's a career politician and doesn't have a clue about the real world.

My point is that Obama is no different from the other politicians we have now. Very few politicians actually have real experience, and if they do once they get into politics they stay. Most politicians are also from a privileged background now.

 

He certainly isn't any different, none of them serve the people any more. There are politicians with experience of reality, sadly they've usually come to the show too late and never get very far. That said Romney does at least have some experience in business unlike Obama. It's business that will get America out of the hole its dug itself, not government programs that rarely work and cost a fortune.

[csgators]

Not voting, in my own opinion, loses you the right to complain about the winner. Why should you have the right to whine if you didn't bother to vote? My first question when someone starts whining is did you vote against them? If No then STFU. If you didn't care enough to vote your opinion doesn't matter.

 

A voters personal opinion doesn't matter either because they gave consent for a 3rd party to speak for them. Giving your voice away so some idiot can speak for you is the way of it though it seems.

 

How that works, the Electoral College, is the people go vote in a sector. The majority winner is what that person is supposed to vote for. Then after all the sectors are done in a state, the person with the most Electoral votes gets all the electoral votes. In some states, it works differently, but thats how it is usually done.

 

Not if the republican party has their way. They want to be able to cherry pick the folks that get sent to "represent" their areas......

 

Considering we vote for our representatives? Impressive.

 

Maybe you missed this little tidbit:

 

]This past Friday, the RNC's Convention Rules Committee voted – after several contentous votes – to change the party's rules to allow future presidential candidates to have veto power over who can be delegates from any state – in other words, take power away from the grassroots and their ability to elect fellow conservatives as delegates.[/b]

 

The delegates are supposed to pledge for for the candidate, what's so shocking? They are only there to prevent complete catastrophe and give smaller states more power. They are not there to just pick someone on a whim.

 

Correct, and, depending on what state they come from..... they are all supposed to pledge for the over-all 'winner' in that state, or, pledge per candidate based on what percentage of the vote they got. Mitt and company are trying to ensure that they can cherry pick which delegates show up, so they can be sure that their choice of candidate, is the one that gets the delegates, regardless of what state they are from.

 

Both parties have electors...if Romney wins an outright state, his electors get to vote. If Obama wins it then his electors vote. If the state spits then some from Romney and some from Obama will vote. The ones that are chosen to vote have almost always voted the way they pledged. A total of 158 have been faithless electors, it has never changed the outcome. This new rule makes the odds even smaller than a elector will vote in a way he is not prescribed to.

[mizdarby]

He is an inexperienced man who comes from a background of privilege and has spent his career dabbling with either academe or politics and self aggrandizement.

So every politician ever. Okay.

 

Certainly not. They used to have other careers, and successful ones. Some served in the military, some as businessmen, some in the professions, but Obama as I understand it is an academic lawyer.

Here in the UK it used to be just the same, but now we have career politicians who have chosen Parliament as a first career choice and don't know squat about anything else.

I agree with ginnyfizz about the UK at least, both David Cameron (Prime Minister) and Ed Milliband (Leader of the opposition) are career politicans, and it kind of shows. Neither of them seem to have the slightest idea about the lives of their electorate. But then again the US, have elected former actors (Ronald Reagan), who probably have even less in touch with the common person.

I think I like my politicians to understand the workings of politics, but also to of made successful careers outside of politics. Obama as a lawyer, may well have hands on experience with the legal processes, which might hold him in good stead when dealing with constitutional matters and international law, but does it make him capable of understanding the finer points of economics. Romney apparently rescued the 2002 Winter Olympics, so he will be experienced with dealing with slippery slopes (sorry english humour), and since he seems to have business savvy, I would have more faith in his ability to deal with financial matters. Of course I still rather vote for Gary Johnson.

[Minuteman308]

Guys, please settle down this Quote-Quote-Quote-Quote Stuff. It hurts the eye and no one reads it anyway.

[mizdarby]

Leading presidential candidate 2012 by state Obama/Romney ( opinion poll based)

 

Barack Obama:215 Mitt Romney:142 Tied within the margin of error:165 No data:16 TO WIN:270

 

Where the numbers define the electoral vote count.

Obama would seem to have a healthy lead, which reflects his higher approval rating. Still far from an overwhelming lead, but Romney is going to have to press a lot of flesh, especially in the tied within the margin of error states. A third party candidate would complicate the picture, if it took votes particularly from Democrat voters, it would obviously help the Republicans, and vise versa. I don't expect there to be a serious third party challenge though.

 

Of course based on the straw poll, of this debate, Romney has a clear lead over Obama, where people have voted for either the Democrats or Republicans, though there is a stronger third party involved.

[Patrick2me]

I don't really think either candidate is best for the U.S. I guess I prefer Obama, but I'd much rather see a third party candidate gain some traction. This is going to be my first opportunity to vote in the General Election and I hate the feeling of being restricted to vote either Democrat or Republican. It seems to me that to really make a big difference, would be at the local and state level. If a genuine third party politician was elected as a Governor, and he/she made great strides within that state, it might help promote people to look into other parties.