American voters can be very stupid and vote against their own self interest...

For the non-Americans here, this is a major difference between the Right and Left in America. Generally, the Left vote for their own self interest and the Right vote for what's in the best interest of the country.

Take Obamacare for example, I don't have insurance and am in deep shit should something happen. It is in my own self interest to see it succeed. However, it would be disastrous for the country and unconstitutional so I want it repealed.

Here is one of the more famous quotes from an Obama supporter right after he was elected. She expected Obama to pay for her gas and mortgage, "If I help him, he's gonna help me".

Now, on the surface this makes the Left look more caring. If giving a man fish instead of teaching him how to fish for himself is more caring, then the Left are more caring. But it isn't, is it?

Not true. Poorer people vote for the rich people's party because they have bought the myth that they might be rich too someday. Yes, it's possible but very remote, and more likely in EUROPE.

The Supreme Court is going to be an even bigger issue this election than usual.

The current supreme court is dominated by right wing fascists.

What has this shockingly partisan court done?

-- Stole the election for the right wing in 2000

-- Made corporations people

-- Expanded the SuperPac madness, corrupting U.S. elections even more

-- Said it was OK for anyone to be strip searched for any type of minor crime (reason, rich people are rarely arrested)

-- Threatening to overturn Obamacare, perpetuating the current health care access crisis which is responsible for the premature deaths of millions of people, mostly poorer people, disproportionally minority race people

Elect Romney and this horror show goes on or gets worse.

It will be a top issue, for sure.

About Obamacare, while it is true that the mandate is unpopular, if they strike down the ENTIRE bill instead of just the mandate, there will be a huge backlash. The part of the bill that lets people with preexisting conditions buy insurance is very popular. There are other mechanisms that are possible to to use that would not involve a mandate and still strongly nudge most of the population into insurance, which is of course the basis of funding for the system. The right wing let the sick uninsured just die cold heartless crowd have no answer for the health care access crisis. They just want to destroy, destroy, destroy, and care nothing about poor and sick people.

Thanks for your post, JT.

Now let me address it.

1. Your claim the SCOTUS stole the 200 election is patently absurd for this simple reason. On all of the myriad and mysterious ways the recount was managed, Al Gore NEVER LED at the end of any recount. It has now been 12 years and the Democrats have still not resolved themselves to the fact that GWB beat the best man they had at the time. He also beat the best man the Democrats ran four years later.

2. Why not give corporations the right to participate in federal elections? Corporations have at least as much at stake as labor unions and unions have unlimited cash and access to the campaigns and have had for years. If it is fair for labor unions to participate and espouse the Democratic party agenda, why can't corporations espouse their own agenda?

3. A recent decision by SCOTUS allowed strip searches but did not require them. Here is what the recent SCOTUS decision has been summarized as:

"Justice Anthony M. Kennedy, joined by the court’s conservative wing, wrote that courts are in no position to second-guess the judgments of correctional officials who must consider not only the possibility of smuggled weapons and drugs, but also public health and information about gang affiliations."

and...

" The Supreme Court did not say that strip-searches of every new arrestee were required; it ruled, rather, that the Fourth Amendment’s prohibition of unreasonable searches did not forbid them."

It would appear to be a search by local authorities that is allowable but not mandatory and would further seem to have nothing to do with a person's wealth or lack of same.

http://www.nytimes.c...?pagewanted=all

4. I don't recall any Justice of the Supreme Court threatening to overturn Obamacare. They might do it and hopefully will do it (from my perspective) but, unless you have access to the private vote taken last Friday, that Obama probably has by now, there is no way you can make the statement that the Supreme Court's intent is to overturn Obamacare.

The Supreme Court's charge is to insure the constitutionality of legislation enacted in the US. They have over the past 200+ years generally performed admirably. I would expect them to do the same in this case. For the record I do believe Congress overstepped their constitutional limits by the mandate and The Democratic party, who wrote the bill, screwed up by not including a severability clause.

As Nancy Pelosi crowed..."Congress needs to pass this bill so you can find out what's in it." Perhaps somebody should have read it before it was passed.

As far as health insurance is concerned, there are a few things that Congress can legally do that will lower the cost of care and they won't be in violation of the Constitution by doing so.

1. Enact tort reform which will lower the ability of misdiagnosed hangnails costing a liability company millions to settle a frivolous suit. The effects of tort reform will lower liability insurance premiums for care givers and doctors. It will stop unnecessary tests and lab reports since the medical field will not have to cover their collective behinds by testing everything before they operate on the hangnail.

2. Allow cross state insurance exchanges to operate. Now, as the law stands, a company in Georgia cannot go to an insurance provider in Alabama to obtain medical coverage for his employees. What we currently have is a state by state monopoly with the deepest pockets getting each state.

3. Permit companies to set up medical savings accounts for their employees where both employees and employers contribute. If they are not sick, they get the money back that has accumulated on their behalf at retirement. If they leave early they would still get their portion back.

I notice the CBO has now come out with an estimate that Obamacare will now cost roughly twice as much as was originally forecast. The forecast is up from $940 Billion to $1.76 Trillion...but what's $820 Billion among friends, right?

http://news.yahoo.co...-163500655.html

There are probably many other areas where savings could be made in the health industry but right now my brain is fried and I need to eat dinner.

Two more things;

1) The Supreme Court today includes 4 new justices who were added AFTER 2000 so don't "blame" this court on anything that happened 12 years ago.

2) Obamacare - WHY do liberals have such a hard time understanding laws can't go against the Constitution? Obama was a lecturer of Constitutional Law at Harvard AND he didn't think Obamacare would have problems? To be fair to him though, he didn't lead at all on this. He passed the buck to Nancy and Harry who pushed and bribed their way to a vote without reading it.

I'm a registered Republican and I was embarrassed at times by Bush 43. The way he spoke he must have had a stroke or some other kind of brain damage. But Obama has been put up on a pedestal as the most brilliant man to ever hold office - well, at least since our "first black president", Bubba. Obama can't be another "village idiot" so he must be dishonest as hell.

Bush was in office eight years from 2000.

The mandate was Romney's idea.

If that is unconstitutional, so is social security and medicare.

Of course right wing purists openly want those things gone too. Give them too much power including more supreme picks and they can succeed with that.

Anyway, I am for single payer, access for all, and lower cost.

Surely a country is its PEOPLE and a people with health care SECURITY and full access to preventative health services is a healthier nation, a happier nation, a stronger nation, a more productive nation, and a richer nation.

Yes part of that is national programs to promote healthy activities, diet, and reduce obesity.

People who vote for the far right, unless they are super wealthy, vote against their own self interest and their nations self interest as well. People who think it is OK to allow a huge portion of our citizens to simply not be able to get the health care they need, considering preventative care is both much cheaper and greatly enhances quality of lives, are in my view, terribly immoral people. Funny, they act like they are the super moral ones, but instead they seemed obsessed about what goes on in OTHER people's bedrooms.

Not true. Poorer people vote for the rich people's party because they have bought the myth that they might be rich too someday.

Or - and this is something liberals can't understand - they just want what's best for their country.

Not true. Poorer people vote for the rich people's party because they have bought the myth that they might be rich too someday.

Or - and this is something liberals can't understand - they just want what's best for their country.

Give me a break. You think millions of people dying before their time, and suffering for no good reason, while at the same time Americans in general pay way more for health care than anywhere in the world is good for America? I can't understand or accept such brazen immorality.

The threads droning on about how UK tax money is spent have a direct effect on me. Who the POTUS is doesn't affect my life at all.

Sure it does. Look at how much time you have spent in threads here over the years discussing what Bush or Obama have done. In contrast, I haven't spent a single minute in any UK tax thread.

I've spent very little time discussing what Bush or Obama has done. You must be confusing me with someone else.

I'll remember that next time you post in a thread about wars in Iraq or Afghanistan, sanctions, potential wars or nukes in Iran, waterboarding, Israel, or any of the many other threads where decisions made by the POTUS play a major part.

The title of the thread is "Upcoming Us Presidential Election". I take very little part in discussion of American politics. I also take very little part in discussions about Israel. The other subjects that you mention are things that my Government takes part in so I have every right to discuss them. As I said earlier on I have no interest in US politics. I don't care who your President is. Whoever it is has no personal effect on my life.

I'll remember that next time you post in a thread about wars in Iraq or Afghanistan, sanctions, potential wars or nukes in Iran, waterboarding, Israel, or any of the many other threads where decisions made by the POTUS play a major part.

The title of the thread is "Upcoming Us Presidential Election". I take very little part in discussion of American politics. I also take very little part in discussions about Israel. The other subjects that you mention are things that my Government takes part in so I have every right to discuss them. As I said earlier on I have no interest in US politics. I don't care who your President is. Whoever it is has no personal effect on my life.

Your government takes part in them because the US President made them. Remember Tony Blair as Bush's lapdog? Anyway, the topic isn't "why do people who aren't interested in a thread feel compelled to post in it how little they care?" so I'll just agree that you have the right to post in any thread you want and leave it at that.

I'll remember that next time you post in a thread about wars in Iraq or Afghanistan, sanctions, potential wars or nukes in Iran, waterboarding, Israel, or any of the many other threads where decisions made by the POTUS play a major part.

The title of the thread is "Upcoming Us Presidential Election". I take very little part in discussion of American politics. I also take very little part in discussions about Israel. The other subjects that you mention are things that my Government takes part in so I have every right to discuss them. As I said earlier on I have no interest in US politics. I don't care who your President is. Whoever it is has no personal effect on my life.

Your government takes part in them because the US President made them. Remember Tony Blair as Bush's lapdog? Anyway, the topic isn't "why do people who aren't interested in a thread feel compelled to post in it how little they care?" so I'll just agree that you have the right to post in any thread you want and leave it at that.

OK - you win. Happy now?

Not true. Poorer people vote for the rich people's party because they have bought the myth that they might be rich too someday.

Or - and this is something liberals can't understand - they just want what's best for their country.

Give me a break. You think millions of people dying before their time, and suffering for no good reason, while at the same time Americans in general pay way more for health care than anywhere in the world is good for America? I can't understand or accept such brazen immorality.

"millions dying before their time"? Really? I hope you washed your hands after pulling out that statistic. This is the topic for another thread but I think a bigger factor to the healthcare problem is not people dying too soon, but people living years beyond when nature (God, whatever) tries to take them. Imagine the cost of pet care if we hooked dogs up to machines to help them breathe. We are more humane to our pets than we are to other humans. Anyway, we can find a solution to our healthcare problems without trampling the Constitution. Perhaps the President could have figured out a way if he didn't need Affirmative Action to get him into school in the first place.

Bush was in office eight years from 2000.

The mandate was Romney's idea.

If that is unconstitutional, so is social security and medicare.

Of course right wing purists openly want those things gone too. Give them too much power including more supreme picks and they can succeed with that.

Anyway, I am for single payer, access for all, and lower cost.

Surely a country is its PEOPLE and a people with health care SECURITY and full access to preventative health services is a healthier nation, a happier nation, a stronger nation, a more productive nation, and a richer nation.

Yes part of that is national programs to promote healthy activities, diet, and reduce obesity.

People who vote for the far right, unless they are super wealthy, vote against their own self interest and their nations self interest as well. People who think it is OK to allow a huge portion of our citizens to simply not be able to get the health care they need, considering preventative care is both much cheaper and greatly enhances quality of lives, are in my view, terribly immoral people. Funny, they act like they are the super moral ones, but instead they seemed obsessed about what goes on in OTHER people's bedrooms.

The question before the Supreme Court isn't really whether the mandate itself is unconstitutional, it is whether or not the Federal government can compel an individual to purchase a service or item under penalty of fine and/or imprisonment. The Administration claims they have the right under the Commerce clause of the Constitution to take this step when in fact the Constitution explicitly forbids Congress from abusing States rights. The Massachusetts medical care bill was a state mandated purchase and had nothing to do with the Federal government.

Are the Social Security and Medicare programs unconstitutional? I don't know but the Social Security program is, indeed, a massive Ponzi scheme. I, and my employers, paid into the program for nearly 57 years so I feel it is a right I have earned and paid for over the years. I also feel that, had the money I and my employer's contributed to the program been invested in an account in my name specifically for my own personal benefit, my return would have been much better and my heirs would have had the remainder upon my passing.

I have never used Medicare or Medicaid since neither are available outside the US so my opinion from a personal standpoint is invalid as to their worth. I also know that Medicare and/or Medicaid have mandated that any care provider must take care of the medical issues of any individual, both citizens and non-citizens, regardless of their ability to pay. For all practical purposes, medical care is free to indigent, needy persons regardless of their immigration status and your claim of "millions" of needless deaths does not seem to be based on facts.

Since you seem to believe social medicine is a boon for society, perhaps a few links to both Canadian and British health services issues might be worth looking at.

http://www.cbsnews.c...162-681801.html

http://www.city-jour...healthcare.html

http://www2.macleans...ve-health-care/

http://stanfordrevie...major-problems/

In the long run, Obamacare is an integral part of his campaign and is appropriate for discussion. Though I think this is an area where we will need to agree to disagree.

I just cannot understand why the obama supporters have such short memories. I recall his promise to have all bills on the web and read before voting; obama care was never read by the very people who pushed to have it passed. Oman promised to be transparent; NOT. O was going to be bipartisan ????? oops, eliminate cronies, and health the wounds of America slave history. from the outside looking in he has done everything but keep any of his promises and he still places blame on bush for his failings. Why the gays and woman fear the republicans so much baffles me as it seem to me that the dems are the ones who wave flags declaring their stand while the reps just get on with business. and let’s be honest obama is the most racist man to hold the office in our life time. Anytime a black gets arrested, shot, or spoken harshly too it is a matter of presidential concern. the sad thing is once he is gone he will never need to get a job or make a payroll, man talk about living in a bubble.

I just cannot understand why the obama supporters have such short memories. I recall his promise to have all bills on the web and read before voting; obama care was never read by the very people who pushed to have it passed. Oman promised to be transparent; NOT. O was going to be bipartisan ????? oops, eliminate cronies, and health the wounds of America slave history. from the outside looking in he has done everything but keep any of his promises and he still places blame on bush for his failings. Why the gays and woman fear the republicans so much baffles me as it seem to me that the dems are the ones who wave flags declaring their stand while the reps just get on with business. and let’s be honest obama is the most racist man to hold the office in our life time. Anytime a black gets arrested, shot, or spoken harshly too it is a matter of presidential concern. the sad thing is once he is gone he will never need to get a job or make a payroll, man talk about living in a bubble.

He has never held a real job or made a payroll anyway so it should make little difference to him.

Have you guys seen this? It is unbelievable. Obama's speechwriters should be fired for rehashing the same thing. Can't blame Obama, he just reads what's on the teleprompter.

maybe he is not even there? Maybe it has all just been an even slicker campaign continuation than we thought?

Maybe he is a hologram?

In any case I guess the speeches are proof of how little has changed

Yeah vote for the plutocrat. That'll make things better for the masses.

Well as it stands we have the usual choices...

It is like someone asking ...."Would you like me to punch your face or your stomach"?

Sadly we are never given a real choice.....If we were then "none of the above" would be

included in the ballot

Well as it stands we have the usual choices...

It is like someone asking ...."Would you like me to punch your face or your stomach"?

Sadly we are never given a real choice.....If we were then "none of the above" would be

included in the ballot

Sadly this is the case. Each time we elect someone new on fake promises, each time we are disappointed. At least GWB has an excuse - 9/11 happened barely 6 months after his inauguration and that was a game changer. Obama knew what was happening long before he took office and made all his lofty, BS promises. Now, we will either end up with him for another disastrous 4 years, or get Romney and no one really knows what would happen with him. I'm willing to take that chance though.

Barack Obama's bodyguards sent home from Colombia summit amid prostitution allegations

http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/worldnews/barackobama/9204309/Barack-Obamas-bodyguards-sent-home-from-Colombia-summit-amid-prostitution-allegations.html

One thing Dubya never did - mixed up the Falklands with the Maldives.

No wonder the Argeninian delegation left the Summit early.

The man's a fool.

One thing Dubya never did - mixed up the Falklands with the Maldives.

No wonder the Argeninian delegation left the Summit early.

The man's a fool.

Dubya wouldn't have known either islands

This makes sense to me. Romney as the radical magical thinking capitalist. If Obama can get this message across, he wins:

Just like that, all would be well — as if we never needed the trust-busting of the Progressive Era, the social legislation of the New Deal, the health programs of the Great Society and the coordinated action of the world’s governments in 2008 and 2009 to keep the Great Recession from becoming something far worse.

http://www.washingtonpost.com/opinions/romneys-principled-radical-view-for-america/2012/04/25/gIQA8ZllhT_story.html

Yet "Opinion" pieces like the following will come up much more often in the upcoming election process.

Obama’s oil flimflam

By Charles Krauthammer, Published: March 16

Yes, of course, presidents have no direct control over gas prices. But the American people know something about this president and his disdain for oil. The “fuel of the past,” he contemptuously calls it. To the American worker who doesn’t commute by government motorcade and is getting fleeced every week at the pump, oil seems very much a fuel of the present — and of the foreseeable future.

http://www.washingto...77ES_story.html

It's early but encouraging electoral map tally here. In this scenario, Obama would only need one "tossup" state. How about Arizona?

http://elections.huffingtonpost.com/2012/general

It's early but encouraging electoral map tally here. In this scenario, Obama would only need one "tossup" state. How about Arizona?

http://elections.huf...om/2012/general

As he's an utter tosser, he will probably get all the toss-ups he needs. Unfortunately.

The Huffington Post has been, and always will be, in the tank for Obama. Naturally they will report he is leading in PA, OH, WI and put them in his category when all indications I have seen are those states are very much borderline.

One factor that is conveniently overlooked by HuffPo is the fact their own survey shows Obama's unfavorability ratings in both his job performance and how he is handling the economy is lower than 50%.

As I recall no president has won reelection in the modern era with ratings below 50%.

http://elections.huf...st.com/pollster

Now here is a slightly different picture than that presented by Arriana Huffington:

http://www.realclear...ollege_map.html

Pick whichever one you like.

OMG, we've got a historian here! Worse president in U.S. history? Translation -- republican on board.

Well, it is an accomplishment of sorts to be 'worse' than Jimmuh but Obama's done it!

Bill Maher voiced a strong racial subtext of the upcoming election that African Americans are feeling strongly. One term for the first black president isn't enough. If he loses, he will be seen as a failure and the racists will be feeling, we tried a black man, and it didn't work out ... so never again. Be honest -- this is true. I think Bill Maher is right about this. So for all the other great reasons to reelect President Obama, to further move forward the CIVIL RIGHTS struggle is yet another good reason.

Bill Maher voiced a strong racial subtext of the upcoming election that African Americans are feeling strongly. One term for the first black president isn't enough. If he loses, he will be seen as a failure and the racists will be feeling, we tried a black man, and it didn't work out ... so never again. Be honest -- this is true. I think Bill Maher is right about this. So for all the other great reasons to reelect President Obama, to further move forward the CIVIL RIGHTS struggle is yet another good reason.

In other words, reelect Obama because he is black? Isn't that reverse racism?

Of course, Bill Maher would not have a dog in this fight. He only gave $1,000,000 for Obama's reelection. Maybe Bill wants an Ambassadorship out of his little gratuity.