I'm sorry the fact that he lived abroad for a few years and grew up in the great state of Hawaii is irrelevant. It comes off as xenophobic. You're suggesting he isn't a real American. That is DISGUSTING.

Then he should act like one.

What is that supposed to mean? You know this line of discussion comes off as BIRTHER. It is really distasteful.

It means Obama is not convincing as someone who loves his country. I'm no birther but keep name calling if it helps you deal with the "distasteful" truth.

Two Hawaiian newspapers ran birth announcements for Barack Hussein Obama - saying he was born in Hawaii on Aug 4, 1961. That is proof enough for me (and even Bill O'Reilly!! OMG!). Or maybe this is like a Hollywood spy movie where that child died very young and later someone stole his identity? Of course that is totally untrue, otherwise might be something fishy with his Social Security Number or something like that. Just like in the movies.

Here is an excellent article on the politics of the Mormon/Romney connection. What's OK to talk about, how can the press talk about it or not. how the Romney campaign is playing defense so that the press doesn't talk about it. I think there are some VERY LEGITIMATE areas of discussion here that the American people DO deserve to know about.

Most dramatically which I just learned from the article that Romney while he was serving as a Mormon religious leader personally ENFORCED the then existent Mormon ban on INTERRACIAL marriages. How he also showed disdain and not understanding to groups trying to protest that horrible, racist, bigoted, indefensible discrimination based on race. This is really very interesting considering his current position in favor of discriminating against gay people in the same way, which also directly reflects the policies of the Mormon church. Intelligent people KNOW that its only a matter of time that the people today who fight for discrimination against gays will in future be seen as indefensible bigots in exactly the same way that those favoring interracial ones are now considered.

http://www.washingto...o56U_story.html

You kinow Jingthing, I agree with you that Mormonism is a cult. I also agree with the others that stated that Obama is Muslim. But Jingthing, step back a minute here. Let's suppose the candidate was Jewish and someone was raking him over the coals like you are Romney. You'd be all over their ass with the anti-semite comments, and lets face it there would be a lot of real meat there ifr there was a Jewish candiadate. Loyalties to Israel, All that Old Testament drivel..., but the point is you'd be all over their ass.

Unless the Jewish candidate ran on the Republican ticket.

Here is an excellent article on the politics of the Mormon/Romney connection. What's OK to talk about, how can the press talk about it or not. how the Romney campaign is playing defense so that the press doesn't talk about it. I think there are some VERY LEGITIMATE areas of discussion here that the American people DO deserve to know about.

Most dramatically which I just learned from the article that Romney while he was serving as a Mormon religious leader personally ENFORCED the then existent Mormon ban on INTERRACIAL marriages. How he also showed disdain and not understanding to groups trying to protest that horrible, racist, bigoted, indefensible discrimination based on race. This is really very interesting considering his current position in favor of discriminating against gay people in the same way, which also directly reflects the policies of the Mormon church. Intelligent people KNOW that its only a matter of time that the people today who fight for discrimination against gays will in future be seen as indefensible bigots in exactly the same way that those favoring interracial ones are now considered.

http://www.washingto...o56U_story.html

You kinow Jingthing, I agree with you that Mormonism is a cult. I also agree with the others that stated that Obama is Muslim. But Jingthing, step back a minute here. Let's suppose the candidate was Jewish and someone was raking him over the coals like you are Romney. You'd be all over their ass with the anti-semite comments, and lets face it there would be a lot of real meat there ifr there was a Jewish candiadate. Loyalties to Israel, All that Old Testament drivel..., but the point is you'd be all over their ass.

Unless the Jewish candidate ran on the Republican ticket.

Weird comment. In any case, I vote based on ideology, not religion. But I prefer a president who is NOT ultra religious in ANY religion or cult. In Romney's case, I am very offended that as a Mormon he enforced a racist marriage ban, dissed protesters of this racism, and even recently has donated his own personal money to Mormon anti-gay groups trying to "cure" gays which mainstream psychiatry believes causes depression and suicide.

Obama's base doesn't think so, and thinks Romney would be WORSE. That makes an election battle, yes? I am not saying anyone who thinks Obama has been a gangbusters success either. That's why this has to be a NEGATIVE election.

Here's what Obama's base thinks of him...

http://www.forbes.com/sites/kenrapoza/2012/06/02/obama-gets-left-behind/3/

Come on now. Is Obama really a “psychopathic megalomaniac”? I learned of Obama’s problems today. Not from Ron Paul supporters. Not from Glenn Beck‘s Drudge wanna-be news site The Blaze. I read about Obama’s psychosis from left wing Democrats.

Everyday I get emails from former members of Move On, a pro-Democratic Party group that was famously active during the build-up to the Iraq War in 2003. They’re complaining about one man: President Obama.

In these emails, one thing is apparent. When it comes to the left wing liberals, Obama is being left behind.

Re: Write-in Kermit the Frog!

Re: Obama is a psychopath; reminds me of Stalin

Re: Bush mighta been better.

It is not a fact that he is a Muslim and anyone who actually believes that is calling their entire credibility to be questioned. If I told you I actually believed that Romney was a unicorn, what would you think about my credibility?

After the past few weeks? It wouldn't change a thing.

I think he means because his father was a Muslim - otherwise how could he be a Muslim without believing in Islam -, but only Muslims would buy that one. Personally, I think that he is a far-left atheist that only pretends to have any religious leanings.

I was in Indonesia briefly in 2009 and when I asked people told me Obama was for sure Muslim. They can't vote so it doesn't really matter. Right?

I think he means because his father was a Muslim - otherwise how could he be a Muslim without believing in Islam -, but only Muslims would buy that one. Personally, I think that he is a far-left atheist that only pretends to have any religious leanings.

I was in Indonesia briefly in 2009 and when I asked people told me Obama was for sure Muslim. They can't vote so it doesn't really matter. Right?

They want to relate to him. That's daft that you believe them. Obama is an American. He lives under American law. Not any other country's law. Not under Sharia law. Please get a grip.

It is not a fact that he is a Muslim and anyone who actually believes that is calling their entire credibility to be questioned. If I told you I actually believed that Romney was a unicorn, what would you think about my credibility?

After the past few weeks? It wouldn't change a thing.

Yes, bad times. Do you think a (new) WAR would help?

It is not a fact that he is a Muslim and anyone who actually believes that is calling their entire credibility to be questioned. If I told you I actually believed that Romney was a unicorn, what would you think about my credibility?

After the past few weeks? It wouldn't change a thing.

Yes, bad times. Do you think a (new) WAR would help?

I guess if Obama declared war on obese unicorns he might net a few votes.

It is not a fact that he is a Muslim and anyone who actually believes that is calling their entire credibility to be questioned. If I told you I actually believed that Romney was a unicorn, what would you think about my credibility?

After the past few weeks? It wouldn't change a thing.

Yes, bad times. Do you think a (new) WAR would help?

I guess if Obama declared war on obese unicorns he might net a few votes.

Where is the recruitment station? My country needs me. I will not falter!

It looks like Clinton stuck the boot in too on Obama, I guess he would even prefer a Mormon republican to the current POTUS, and who could blame him.

http://www.israelnationalnews.com/News/News.aspx/156629#.T9CSeFLpX64

Quite a few democrats seem to be sticking it to Obama the last few weeks. Even Nancy Polisi has been saying what a wonderful man Bush was.

It looks like Clinton stuck the boot in too on Obama, I guess he would even prefer a Mormon republican to the current POTUS, and who could blame him.

http://www.israelnat...29#.T9CSeFLpX64

The Clintons are political predators, little doubt they are top of the political food chain. If they are trying to sabotage Obama, there must be a reason. I suspect that they do not expect the economy to improve enough the next few years no matter who is in the White House.

1) If by 2016 the economy hasn't recovered and we have just finished 8 years of a Democrat president, it will be very tough for another Dem (Hillary) to win a presidential election. If Romney wins and the economy is still bad, Hillary would have a much easier time.

2) Or, Obama wins and the economy improves. If that happened, then the voters would be happy to vote in another Dem (Hillary) in 2016. :Similar to Bush 41 following Reagan in 1988. Of course, the Clintons probably have little faith that if Obama wins a second term, the economy will improve. They aren't idiots after all.

I wonder if any of this will actually come out or if the main stream media will again choose to ignore it.

_______________________________________________________

JUNE 7, 2012 4:00 A.M.

Obama’s Third-Party History

By Stanley Kurtz

On the evening of January 11, 1996, while Mitt Romney was in the final years of his run as the head of Bain Capital, Barack Obama formally joined the New Party, which was deeply hostile to the mainstream of the Democratic party and even to American capitalism. In 2008, candidate Obama deceived the American public about his potentially damaging tie to this third party. The issue remains as fresh as today’s headlines, as Romney argues that Obama is trying to move the United States toward European-style social democracy, which was precisely the New Party’s goal.

...and...

Recently obtained evidence from the updated records of Illinois ACORN at the Wisconsin Historical Society now definitively establishes that Obama was a member of the New Party. He also signed a “contract” promising to publicly support and associate himself with the New Party while in office.

Minutes of the meeting on January 11, 1996, of the New Party’s Chicago chapter read as follows:

"Barack Obama, candidate for State Senate in the 13th Legislative District, gave a statement to the membership and answered questions. He signed the New Party “Candidate Contract” and requested an endorsement from the New Party. He also joined the New Party."

Read entire article here: http://www.nationalr...-stanley-kurtz#

Nobody cares about the New Party. Obama is president. So soon the supreme court will rule on Obamacare. How will they rule? What impact will the ruling have on the election?

Supposing you are right that Obama is ideologically far left. SO WHAT? He has never had and will never have in a second term a MANDATE to do anything about it. Bring the US a little further left from its right wing bearings is a good thing. Obama couldn't even win universal health care, a moderate position in Europe, and didn't even TRY!

I wonder if any of this will actually come out or if the main stream media will again choose to ignore it.

_______________________________________________________

JUNE 7, 2012 4:00 A.M.

Obama’s Third-Party History

By Stanley Kurtz

On the evening of January 11, 1996, while Mitt Romney was in the final years of his run as the head of Bain Capital, Barack Obama formally joined the New Party, which was deeply hostile to the mainstream of the Democratic party and even to American capitalism. In 2008, candidate Obama deceived the American public about his potentially damaging tie to this third party. The issue remains as fresh as today’s headlines, as Romney argues that Obama is trying to move the United States toward European-style social democracy, which was precisely the New Party’s goal.

...and...

Recently obtained evidence from the updated records of Illinois ACORN at the Wisconsin Historical Society now definitively establishes that Obama was a member of the New Party. He also signed a “contract” promising to publicly support and associate himself with the New Party while in office.

Minutes of the meeting on January 11, 1996, of the New Party’s Chicago chapter read as follows:

"Barack Obama, candidate for State Senate in the 13th Legislative District, gave a statement to the membership and answered questions. He signed the New Party “Candidate Contract” and requested an endorsement from the New Party. He also joined the New Party."

Read entire article here: http://www.nationalr...-stanley-kurtz#

A major problem with the American election system (the same in Britain, but not so bad because it doesn't go on so long) is that a candidate who is not an angel is bound to have done things which the electors will disapprove of, or perhaps to have done nothing, ever.

Since there are not enough angels to go around, how are the electors to choose?

I suspect that most electors (I exclude the people who are posting on this thread, as they seem to be far above the average elector in discrimination) see the major policy proposals, if these are new, the face of the candidate(does he look trustworthy? even, would I like to sleep with him?), or vote as their fathers voted.

All these little matters which you people talk about probably don't have much effect. But I'm only an ignorant Englishman, and considering whom we elected last time, I shouldn't criticise you!

This election in DIVIDED America will be decided by a small percentage of "swing" voters in a small number of states. That's a lot of power for a small percentage of people. My personal vote is meaningless. Solid red state.

I would love to see the USA become more of a real democracy, with the national popular vote determining the election, and all citizens required to vote under the law. That's the least that can be expected of citizens.

I would love to see the USA become more of a real democracy, with the national popular vote determining the election, and all citizens required to vote under the law. That's the least that can be expected of citizens.

Sure, popular vote is great. Breaking it down by individual vote might be unrealistic though (especially considering how many dead Democrats seem to vote each year). To make it more fair, instead of winning 50 states, the candidates should be awarded counties, and whichever candidate has the most counties, wins.

Of course, without the large cities in the fringes of the country a Democrat would never be elected. Here is the county map from the 2008 election which perfectly illustrates that without winning 6 cities; Los Angeles, San Francisco, Chicago, New York, Boston, and Miami - Democrats would stand as much chance of winning as a normal 3rd party candidate.

Thanks, but no thanks. What a ridiculous idea. Typical right wing Fox News tripe to suggest voter fraud is a major problem in the USA. It is not. The problem is the right wing repression against POOR voters who they know are their natural political enemies.

Thanks, but no thanks. What a ridiculous idea. Typical right wing Fox News tripe to suggest voter fraud is a major problem in the USA. It is not. The problem is the right wing repression against POOR voters who they know are their natural political enemies.

JT:

If POOR people have always voted Democratic...Why are they still POOR?

In the recent Scott Walker debacle in Wisconsin, one Democratic precinct reported 119% participation in the voting process. Now that''s certainly voter participation to a high degree.

How can POOR voters be discriminated against by the requirement that they produce a photo ID? You have to present a photo ID to cash a check, buy an airline ticket, drive a car, sell something at a pawn shop, enter the Department of Justice building and...surprise...attend the next Democratic National Convention.

I don't know since I have never done this, but, does the government require photo IDs when one applies for unemployment, disability, food stamps or other government welfare programs? I certainly had to prove who I was when I applied to draw my social security after paying into the program for around 50 years.

The only people that would be disenfranchised by the requirement of producing a photo ID are those that have no right to vote. That's called enforcing the law.

Remember that old Chicago saying...Vote early and Vote often.

Thanks, but no thanks. What a ridiculous idea. Typical right wing Fox News tripe to suggest voter fraud is a major problem in the USA. It is not. The problem is the right wing repression against POOR voters who they know are their natural political enemies.

JT:

If POOR people have always voted Democratic...Why are they still POOR?

Similar to the same way 99.99% of African Americans who play the victim vote Democrat 99.99% of the time and their situation never changes. Some people just can't figure it out.

This election in DIVIDED America will be decided by a small percentage of "swing" voters in a small number of states. That's a lot of power for a small percentage of people. My personal vote is meaningless. Solid red state.

I would love to see the USA become more of a real democracy, with the national popular vote determining the election, and all citizens required to vote under the law. That's the least that can be expected of citizens.

Now that's a sensible post! Any democratic election is determined by swing voters (unless it's a major landslide); the question is how to get a genuinely democratic result.

In theory, your elections for the House of Representatives are more democratic than the presidential elections, but they too have a long way to go. I can't see a better way than a constituency system like we have in Britain (though that is also deeply flawed because of the difference in the size of the constituencies... which can be changed to its advantage by the party in power). I don't like the concept of compulsory voting, but maybe that's because I don't generally like compulsory anything!

In theory, your elections for the House of Representatives are more democratic than the presidential elections, but they too have a long way to go.

Maybe it appears that way on the surface but in reality they are even worse. Congress constantly redraws district lines based on the registered voters within those districts. It's called Gerrymandering:

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

In the process of setting electoral districts, gerrymandering is a practice that attempts to establish a political advantage for a particular party or group by manipulating geographic boundaries to create partisan or incumbent-protected districts. The resulting district is known as a gerrymander (/ˈdʒɛriˌmændər/); however, that word can also refer to the process.

Gerrymandering may be used to achieve desired electoral results for a particular party, or may be used to help or hinder a particular demographic, such as a political, racial, linguistic, religious or class group.

When used to allege that a given party is gaining disproportionate power, the term gerrymandering has negative connotations. However, a gerrymander may also be used for purposes that some perceive as positive, such as in US federal voting district boundaries that produce a majority of constituents representative of African-American or other racial minorities (these are thus called "majority-minority districts").

One minor correction. Congress does not redraw Congressional districts.

That responsibility lies with each individual State Legislature, subject to Federal government oversight.

This election in DIVIDED America will be decided by a small percentage of "swing" voters in a small number of states. That's a lot of power for a small percentage of people. My personal vote is meaningless. Solid red state.

I would love to see the USA become more of a real democracy, with the national popular vote determining the election, and all citizens required to vote under the law. That's the least that can be expected of citizens.

Now that's a sensible post! Any democratic election is determined by swing voters (unless it's a major landslide); the question is how to get a genuinely democratic result.

In theory, your elections for the House of Representatives are more democratic than the presidential elections, but they too have a long way to go. I can't see a better way than a constituency system like we have in Britain (though that is also deeply flawed because of the difference in the size of the constituencies... which can be changed to its advantage by the party in power). I don't like the concept of compulsory voting, but maybe that's because I don't generally like compulsory anything!

I think I made that point, but I'd forgotten you called it gerrymandering. I don't think we have a name for it.

One minor correction. Congress does not redraw Congressional districts.

That responsibility lies with each individual State Legislature, subject to Federal government oversight.

thanx. It still sucks though.

It gets better and better for the Obama administration. Now we have leakgate - Not that many would be surprised said administration would tip off the enemies of the U.S at the expense of it's allies. I can think of the MI5 cell in Saudi Arabia or the disclosure of Israel having permission to use Azeri airfields as but two examples.

http://www.washingtontimes.com/news/2012/jun/8/obama-rejects-white-house-leaking-charge/

President Obama reacted indignantly Friday to accusations that his aides may have leaked classified details of successful anti-terrorism operations to bolster his national security credentials for the fall reelection campaign.

But in the oval office the ends justify the means.

These leaks came from the White House. Who else would it benefit? Just exactly how dumb does he think the public is?

These leaks came from the White House. Who else would it benefit? Just exactly how dumb does he think the public is?

Either the New York Times is lying or Obama is lying. Take your pick.

I think it is an attempt to make him seem more warrior like for the upcoming election. If he wants to look more masculine, perhaps he should stop wearing that girl's bicycle helmet and learn how to throw a baseball.

Is there anything Obama could have done to get your vote? As it is now, the R party is blocking anything that might help the economy just to help their chances of winning. Bill Maher called this TREASON.

BTW, I predict the supreme court will let ALL of the Obamacare bill stand. What do you think?