Come on America, vote for a real leader!

First topic message reminder :

Well I just cannot believe that any person in the US could really vote for Rommney. if the US people really do believe they are a world power then you need to elect a leader who is just that in my view. your economy has 2% GDP growth and yes it not lots. but have you looked around the world of late? if you have then you will know that most countries who kill for just 2% growth.

Does anyone really believe that Mitt Rommney has any sort of economic policy of note? hell I am just a 29 year old girl and I can tell this guy Rommney is just a right wing bonehead. Consumer spending accounted for most of the rise in GDP. Personal consumption expenditures rose 2% in the quarter, up from 1.5% in the previous quarter. Purchases of long-lasting goods soared 8.5%. The news came as the Thomson Reuters/University of Michigan consumer confidence index rose to its highest level since September 2007.

In a blog post Alan Krueger, chairman of Obama's Council of Economic Advisers, wrote: "While we have more work to do, together with other economic indicators, this report provides further evidence that the economy is moving in the right direction." yet what did bonehead Rommney say about this news?......Romney called the rise "discouraging". "Slow economic growth means slow job growth and declining take-home pay? so all this means nothing at all then? what a fool this man is in my view...hell most of the world would kill for a growth rate of 2% GDP....Is anyone wake in the US?

SO CAN OBAMA WIN STILL? I would say he has to win. but then I do not have a vote in this election.

SO PLEASE TELLS US YOUR VIEWS? [i]

Spoken like a native.

Not the result of course, but a wager that a map of the USA showing how States voted for either Romney or Obama after the event, would show an uncanny resemblance to a map of the Civil War division between confederates and anti-slavers.

I wouldn't take that bet because that's how elections usually go. The former Confederate states vote Republican and the former Union states vote Democrat.

There are a few exceptions, but they are usually the swing states.

The states that vote Republican are generally in the Bible Belt, as well, and are heavily influenced by religion. That hasn't always been the case, though. Up until around the Great Depression, Christians would actually have been considered liberal and progressive today. They actually believed in Christ's teachings and were for things like social programs and entitlement benefits. Then Christianity bent far to the right and became the nasty Social Darwinists of today. Once Christianity in many of these states reverted to a more primitive version of the religion, which relies heavily on Old Testament wrath rather than New Testament love, many of these southern states began suffering massive amounts of poverty, ignorance, and a lack of education.

I'd quite like to have seen Condoleeza Rice go head to head with Obama. Both of them have clear principles. If Mitt gets in then it only shows how few voters have any principles at all.

methought wrote:I'd quite like to have seen Condoleeza Rice go head to head with Obama. Both of them have clear principles. If Mitt gets in then it only shows how few voters have any principles at all.

How did Colin Powell manage to align himself with the neo-con Bad Guys? Did he have hopes of reform from the inside?

Indeed, I agree OW, Colin Powell could work with governments of both persuasions IMHO

Ivan wrote:Recycled from Twitter:-

If Barack Obama cured cancer, the Republicans would accuse him of restricting the individual rights of cells to reproduce.

The same people who demanded to see Obama's birth certificate are defending Romney for not releasing his tax returns.

The USA needs more women in government, not more government in women, GOP!

“Vote Romney? Mormon bishop, gullible enough to be fooled by Joseph Smith – a charlatan as plausible as a Nigerian scam.” (Richard Dawkins)

Everything that's wrong with the USA in just three 'Gs' - God, guns and the GOP.

Mitt Romney's tax return is seeking asylum at the Ecuador Embassy.

Mitt Romney spokesperson says it's easy to confuse 'Sikh' with 'sheikh’. I suppose it's as easy as confusing 'Mormon' with 'moron’.

Awkward moment for Romney in Colorado - a homeless guy asked him for a dollar, but all he had were some Swiss francs.

Mitt Romney was born with a silver spoon in his mouth. But it had to be removed quickly to make room for his foot.

Romney said he'd create 12 million jobs in his first term. He hasn’t said yet whether he’d create them in China or India.

Romney says marriage should be between one man and one woman. His grandfather believed it should be between one man and five women.

When Romney visited a firehouse in New York, he was disappointed when he learned that it wasn't where you get to sack people.

Mitt Romney and Jeremy Hunt’s abortion position – both are staunchly pro-life but don’t give a damn once you’re born.

Admit it Mitt, your grandpa lived in Mexico because he was a polygamist and couldn't live in the USA. Yet Obama's family is suspect?

Hurricane Sandy is so strong it may blow some of Romney's money back into the USA.

https://cuttingedge2.forumotion.co.uk/t319-favourite-tweets

Well put Ivan.

Chrysler has fallen into the hands of the money men.

Cerberus Capital Management acquired an 80.1 percent stake in Chrysler when it was uncoupled from Daimler (Mercedes).

The New York-based private equity firm promised to restore Chrysler "to the first ranks of the U.S. and global auto industry." But the renowned "bottom line" will determine where Jeeps are built, not political considerations.

A clever little cartoon in today's Sunday Times shows an American Voter watching TV and relaying to his wife the message, "They say the candidates are neck and redneck!"

In another part of the paper, polls here suggest that 70% of Brits want Obama to win.
Why can't 70% of British voters get behind a single Party in British elections?

Perhaps because it isn't clear who is talking most sense in British politics

American leaders affect all of us and we are still in the backwash of the previous American administration.

"....we are still in the backwash of the previous American administration."

Not waving but drowning.
Sylvia Plath

YouTube

Just to balance the debate out!!


Poverty in America. The Silent Scandal of 6 November 2012
Posted: 06/11/2012 00:00

46.2 million Americans live in poverty. This represents 15% of the population. Give or take a million, that's about the same population as Spain.

The biggest economy in the world, the global wealth creator that is the United States of America is effectively living with country the size of Spain of people who are below the poverty line, living on a household income of $23,021 for a family of four. Of the 46.2 million, six million live on nothing more than the basic benefit of food stamps which provides an income of $6,300 for a family of three. Bear that in mind next time you're in the supermarket trying to decide whether you should spend more on the cheeky Chablis over the basic Calpol for adults (pinot grigio). The Obama and Romney campaigns have spent $2.6 billion on their campaign. If that was given to the poorest 6 million, each one of them could have received a $450 gift to get them through the winter.

But by listening to Romney and Obama on the campaign trail these statistics never get an airing. I checked recent speeches that both of them have given in their final smash and grab for votes and the word poverty barely even gets a look-in. On 2 November, in Paul Ryan's home state of Wisconsin, Romney's stump speech didn't even mention poverty once. And Obama, campaigning in the same state on 1 November mentioned it just once in his 25 minute address to the people of Green Bay.

Read more on the following.

http://www.huffingtonpost.co.uk/gareth-edmundson/poverty-america-barack-obama-mitt-romney_b_2073966.html?

The problem with poverty is that the government really can't do much about it in America lest the administration be accused of that evil socialism. Poverty is caused by the private sector and the so-called "job creators," not the government. Remember, it's all about profits, profits, profits ... infinitely rising profits. Profits always have to be higher this year than last year. Labor costs, i.e. workers, are an impediment to profits, thus they are paid as little as humanly possible and worked as hard as humanly possible. And the Republicans are trying hard to remove many restrictions that prohibit exploitation of labor. Some states have even tried to remove child labor laws so that young children can be worked for less than the minimum wage.

I have to admit, I have been fascinated reading and learning about the US election, and here we are its "D Day" as we say here in the UK, several things strike me about the American version of democracy, but what stands out most is the polarization.

The big problem with US democracy ( as I see it ) is the total dominance of just two political parties, and I dont know of any other western democracy where this happens.

In America s northern neighbour there is a third party, a fourth party and a string of minority parties, here in the UK there are 12 different political parties in the House of Commons.

The two political parties in the United States are more polarized than ever before, and several American columnists have pointed this out, the gulf between hard line conservatives and libertarians (Liberals) is wide and getting wider, and its realy quite frighening.

The bitter language used by some Republican candidates, by some commentators, radio hosts, preachers and ordinary people makes it feel as though America is heading towards another civil war, its almost like two nations, and I feel its because of the two party polarization.

I hope that in 24 hours from now we will see a second victory for Obama, for common sense and for the safety of Americans and the western world, because make no mistake about it - if Romney is elected, the world will become a less safe place.

America was not designed as a two-party system, and there have been many parties over the years -- Teddy Roosevelt's Bull Moose party, the Whig party, the Know Nothing party just to name a few. Even today, there actually are more than two parties ... the Green Party, the Libertarian Party, even the Communist Party. The presidential ballot actually contains a third name: Gary Johnson of the Libertarian party, and he's not an unreasonable candidate. For my money, he seems liberal in all the right places and conservative on those issues where I feel conservatism is necessary. Yet he lost my vote when it came to his "Fair Tax Initiative" (don't let the name "Fair" fool you into thinking it actually lives up to that name). His tax policy is regressive ... everyone will be taxed the same regardless of income, but that essentially means a massive tax decrease for the wealthy and a stiff tax increase for the poor and middle classes.

At any rate, the two party system, in my view, works well for what America wishes to accomplish. A coalition type government with multiple parties means two things:

First, I might have to vote into power Libertarians in order to see Democrats in power -- and I may loathe Libertarian policies. Yet if the Libertarians and Democrats form a coalition, I might be left with no appealing option.

Secondly, with multiple parties, it is possible for the votes to be so spread out between them that a president could be elected with only 20% or 30% of the total votes. This system does not give the president a clear-cut mandate of the people. If fully 70% of the people voted for someone else, how can the president's position be truly legitimate?

The polarization endimic with this election is not really the fault of having a two-party system. It has worked well for at least 150 years if not longer. Liberals and conservatives have always been among us, and they have always battled for their man to hold the center seat. I personally feel, having done battle with hundreds (perhaps even thousands) of conservatives both inside and outside the internet, that the root of the problem lies squarely at the feet of ... dare I sa it? George W. Bush.

Why? Well, the fact is that Bush was so hated and reviled by Democrats and liberals that the attacks against him were merciless ... and not without reason. He did, after all, get us entangled in two foreign wars, suspended habeus corpus, insituted the very controversial Patriot Act, opened up the Guantanamo prison camp, and seemed to approve using torture. Not to mention he was a buffoon and his constant stream of "Bushisms" made him see more like a comical spoof of the presidency rather than actually being presidential.

Then there was 9/11. Oh yes, you can't forget about 9/11. Here's where things get interesting ... and complicated. An incident that should have united America actually divided us even more deeply than any president ever could. How, might you ask? Well here are the most important reasons made as simple as I can make them:

First: Very soon after the towers fell, there was a division on how to prosecute the war on terror. The GOP and the conservatives wanted to treat the war on terror like WWII, believing this was a clear-cut case of good vs. evil. In this case, America was good and Muslims - ALL Muslims - were evil. In WWII, the Allies made almost no distinction between a Japanese soldier and a Japanese civilian. It didn't matter. The whole Japanese civilization was to be blamed and punished for Pearl Harbor. And there was a racist component, as well, and even though Hitler and his Nazis were far more evil than the Japanese ever were, we never interned German-Americans in camps. Given the comparisons between 9/11 and Pearl Harbor, the same frenzied hatred we had for those "dirty Japs" renewed itself with the Muslims ... with their dark skin, squiggly language, alien god, heathen religion, strange food, bizarre music, foreign architecture, and those ridiculous desert dresses they wore ... ugh! They were NOTHING like us, so, like with the "Japs," they were easy to hate. A racial component began to seep into our war on terror.

The liberals, on the other hand, went too far in the other extreme, even protesting the invasion of Afghanistan which I feel was completely justified. But when Bush went into Iraq, the world exploded in protest. Liberals did not see Muslims or Islam as the enemy. They saw terrorists as the enemy. Even then, some of the more extreme liberals began to believe in the old adage, "One man's terrorist is another man's freedom fighter" and began questioning America's foreign policy decisions. Unlike WWII, Americans simply could not unite against a common enemy since conservatives and liberals couldn't even agree on who that enemy was. Liberals, especially, began criticizing GW Bush for invading Iraq since Iraq had absolutely nothing to do with 9/11, and they began taking to the streets by the hundreds of thousands. Conservatives, on the other hand, saw this as patently un-American and un-patriotic, further dividing the two camps and creating an almost McCarthy-esque, anti-communist atmosphere ... and the debates raged everywhere: on the streets, in classrooms, on college campuses, on the internet, at the family dinner table. People began taking sides.

Second: Because 9/11 was seen by many Americans as a religious event rather than a political one (regardless of how true or false that belief was), the door for right-wing religious extemists, evangelists, and fundamentalists was thrown wide open ... and into the political spectrum they poured like a crusading army. Suddenly Christianity was under attack by a heathen Islamic force! Our whole way of life was in jeapardy including our values, our mores, and our worldview! Not to mention our precious freedoms! In the conservative mind, this was a war of clashing religions, so Christianity had to be shored up in a hurry ... and that incensed the liberals, infuriated them to no end. Suddenly politicians were pushing "family values" and promoting the concept that "America is a CHRISTIAN country, goddammit, and we need to get America right with God!" As a result, suspicion and hatred of Islam was turned inward upon the American people with gays being the first and most obvious target. Liberals and atheists were next on the Christian hit list, and like most societies scurrying about fearfully in the dark, Americans needed a unifying force (Christianity) and an enemy they could actually DO something about (atheism, liberalism, intellectualism). Sure, there was still a lot of Islamophobia, but the danger presented by atheism and liberalism was just as real and their values threatened to undermine "Fortress Christianity" that would repel the Muslim threat. Prominment religious leaders like Jerry Falwell and Pat Robertson even went so far as to blame, at least in part, the Al Qaeda attacks on gays, liberals, feminists, and the ACLU!

Well ... the liberals and the atheists and the agnostics, and hell, even some Christians, wanted nothing whatsoever to do with conservative and Christian extremism. After all, wasn't that the same mentality that caused 9/11 in the first place? In fact, the left-leaning camp was outraged that our nation of diversity and freedom was being hijacked by the same religious extremism that America was presumably fighting against. To an atheist, Christian extremism is just as bad as Islamic extremism. But it was obviously starting. However, atheism and liberalism had been silently growing in strength over the years, so when this religious revival began, the right-wingers were shocked when the leftists began to fight back. The battle lines between right and left were drawn along the usual topics: abortion, gay rights, stem cell research, and the separation of church and state. But the battles were much more fierce, and the casualties, unfortunately were very real ... especially when those unconstitutional state gay marriage bans began popping up all over America. Now there was as much a cultural war going on within America as there was a war on terror going on outside of it. Even Big Business got involved, some companies supporting gay rights while others opposed it, and the religious right went absolutely bonkers, claiming that corporations "should remain neutral in this culture war." Gays in the military, tax funded abortion, evolution vs. creationism, freedom of relgion vs. freedom from religion ... it exploded in our faces and caused the right vs. left crack to grow into a crevasse. It pissed off the Christians to no end when Atheists began fighting for their right not to have religion be the law of the land; Atheists began pushing back using the courts as a weapon to kick Intelligent Design out of our science classrooms or to get references to God out of our Pledge of Allegiance and off our money. Some fights they won, others they lost.

Third: George W. Bush was reelected and the left-wingers, liberals, and atheists went absolutely ballistic. How could such a bumbling idiot win AGAIN? Oh yeah, it was bad enough that Bush won over Al Gore in a dubious election to begin with back in 2000, but a second time? Keep in mind that, not since 1888 did a president win the election without the popular vote. George W. Bush simply did not have a legitimate claim to power according to many liberals, and now Bush was the president again. Liberals were furious as they watched the rest of the world lose all respect for the United States and its people -- as most Europeans and Asians were anti-Bush, his reelection made Americans look like dumbasses. And liberals were acutely aware of how we looked. To make matters worse, Bush received his second term by pandering to the religious right on the gay rights and abortion issues which made it appear that Bush was going to represent ONLY the right-wing religious extremists that the liberals and atheists were fighting against. With a president who "talks to God" sitting in the Oval Office, gay rights being squashed by referendums in various states, and with all of the seemingly fascistic decrees by Bush over the last four years, liberals and atheists really felt like they were being ignored -- and they are a sizeable minority, larger than blacks, larger than Jews, larger than Latinos, yet all of THOSE groups were getting noticed. Yet the more they felt they were being backed into a corner, the harder the leftists began to fight, and those who voted for Kerry stared daggers at those who voted for Bush over a crevasse that was fast becoming a canyon.

Fourth: If things weren't bad enough (and confusing enough), a third group entered the fray: The Truthers. Yep, they played a part. The Truthers, of course, were the fringe element, the conspiracy theorists who believed every major event in US history was caused by a conspiracy involving secret cabals of wealthy bankers - the Bildebergers, the Council on Foreign Relations, the Trilateral Commission, Yale's Skull and Bones fraternity, the Bohemian Grove, etc. etc. and even more etc. This kind of crap would never have gained any traction in previous eras, but this was now the Age of the Internet, and this kind of nonsensense propogated like a virus. The problem here is that a lot of conservatives and religious extremists couldn't tell the difference between Truthers/conspiracy theorists and liberals/Democrats. The rightists believes that, because both camps were anti-Bush, they were on the same side. In fact, the rightists thought that the whole Truther movement was a plot by the Democrats to smear Bush's presidency.

This, however, was definitely NOT the case, and most leftists did their best to distance themselves from the Truther movement ... not that it did any good. The conservatives, sad to say, have a very difficult time making fine distinctions, which is precisely the reason why they saw no real difference between the Muslim people and militant Islam. In fact, the conservative mindset was so deluded that Bush's generals believed that, once Saddam was overthrown, American troops were going to march down Baghdad's widest avenue as Muslims threw roses at America's feet. Heh ... boy did they ever underestimate the Islamic people's staunch independence and pride in their own culture! But, I digress. The Truther movement was actually a gaggle of disenfranchised, fringy people that were mostly disconnected from the rest of society. They thought EVERY president was in collusion with the so-called Illuminati -- there was no "right" and "left" with them, no Democrats and Republicans, no liberal or conservative. They were all equally guilty (they're essentially the same people who concocted the ridiculous Birther movement under Obama).

The Truthers began throwing around all kinds of crazy predictions: Of course 9/11 was a false flag operation to give America an excuse to go into Iraq. They believed Bush would launch another false flag operation just before 2008 so he could declare martial law, suspend elections, and declare himself dictator. They believed that Bush was building FEMA camps not for homeless people displaced by natural disasters but as concentration camps where political dissenters would be hauled off an imprisoned. It was all nonsense, but the Bush supporters blamed Bush haters for all of this guff ... if you didn't like Bush, then you MUST be one of those liberal conspiracy theorists! (Of course the conspiracy theorists were NOT liberal ... they were just barking mad).

The Truther crap makes a resurgence later ...

Fifth: The Great Recession. Ah, here we go. I'm not even sure my fingers are going to hold up, so I hope I can do this justice. Because the Great Recession occurred at the tail end of Bush's presidency, the leftists really had something they could sink their teeth into. Look, see what happens when Republicans are in power?! Not that the leftists didn't already have a lorry load of ammunition -- the 9/11 intelligence failure, two foreign wars (one thought to be illegal), suspension of habeas corpus, illegal wire-tapping, Guantanamo, torture, right-wing religious extremism, human rights violations (and many thought Bush to be a war criminal), the loss of American prestige around the globe, Bush's addition of $5.5 trillion to the national debt, the Patriot Act, Bush simply being a dumbass and horrible speaker, Haliburton scandals, Cheney being a very shadowy VP, and yes, even the Truther crap ... it all played a role. And now we have the worst recession since the Great Depression. Hell, just a recession at the end of Bush Sr.'s presidency cost him a second term and now we have an even greater recession on top of everything else!

As the 2008 election loomed, any Republican worth his elephant knew that the GOP really didn't have a chance to win. Well ... unless .... unless they could assemble the greatest propaganda apparatus since Josef Goebbels' monstrosity created during the Nazi regime, even using the same dishonest tactics. Unfortunately for the right-wing, it was still in its infancy when the election took place, and so played a very small part. In truth, America was already extremely polarized, so the results were a foregone conclusion -- especially since the leftists were so disgusted with Bush and the GOP that they turned out in droves to vote. And, given that Obama as black, the black vote mattered more than ever before.

Sixth: The election of Barack Hussein Obama. Well, I'm not even sure if I can do this event justice. There is just SO much I could write about this, and I'm fast reaching the threshold of my pain endurance. The first problem is how popular Obama was. Honestly, so many in America were so relieved to get rid of Bush that Obama really was like a messiah sent to deliver us from what many considered to be one of the worst presidential administrations in American history. However, what many conservatives simply did not understand (especially the racist ones) was that a large part of the adulation of Obama wasn't because he was Obama, but because he was black. And that IS a big deal. A generation ago, Obama wouldn't have been allowed to sit at the same lunch counter with a white person. Three generations ago and Obama would have been someone's slave. Now a black man was the President of the United States, ostensibly the most powerful man in the world. It's hard for non-blacks to truly understand what a vindication this was to the black peoples of America. It was like the culmination of a 500 year journey for black equality in the Americas, and those who stood in that great crowd in Chicago with tears in their eyes had every RIGHT to feel that way.

But the right-wingers and conservatives horribly misinterpreted this as mindless adoration of a man who had yet to prove himself. Immediately, they latched on to this and spun it with terms like "Obamabot" to describe people who followed the man without an just cause. They simply didn't understand ... and personally, I think there was A LOT of sour grapes present. After all, it would be difficult as a conservative Republican to watch so many people weep with joy at the election of your opposition. Oh yes, LOTS of sour grapes. The constant hatred of Obama and the subsequent lying and misinformation thrown around by the conservative right pissed off the liberals and the Democrats, and the rift got even larger.

Then there is the racial component, the ever-present accusations flying back and forth on both sides. "Oh you voted for Obama just because he's black!" "You voted against Obama because he's black!" "You're a racist!" "No, YOU are!" And the polarization continued to grow. Whether the conservatives wanted to admit it or not, there WAS, in fact, a dark side to this because there were actual racists plotting against Obama. The Secret Service has released data showing Obama has received more death threats than any other president in US history. Within the first year of Obama's presidency, membership in anti-government militias, racist hate groups, and Christian apocalyptic cults increased by over 700%. This wasn't bullshit ... the extreme right WAS, in fact, mobilizing against Obama from the moment he announced his candidacy. This gave the leftists plenty of fuel to add to the fire ... and it wasn't propaganda.

What WAS propaganda were stupid, unfounded, accusations of things like a) Obama is a Muslim, b) Obama is a socialist, c) Obama is going to destroy the country, d) Obama isn't an American citizen ... and the internet was flooded with pictures of Obama dressed as Hitler standing side by side with Stalin, Mao, Lenin, Marx, and every other perceived American enemy since 1917. The right-wingers went on a hyperbole rampage that made the leftists' blood boil with fury.

Along came the quasi-fascist Tea Party that made everything worse. Of course the Tea Party "claimed" to be anti-Big Government, but the leftists simply saw this as another ploy to defame Obama even before he'd actually made any real political decisions. Most of this brouhaha occurred over the Affordable Health Care Act euphemistically known as "Obamacare." The rightists saw this as naked socialism and more Big Government while the leftists saw it as a much needed change to an abysmal system that left 50 million people without access to doctors. Yet again, the rift increased in size and scope.

Within this miasma came several "wars." The first was the conservatives' bogus "War on Religion" that they claimed Obama was waging. The entire premise behind this so-called war was Obama's policy forcing Catholic employers to provide insurance coverage for contraception. Really ... that was IT, the only policy Obama made that had anything to do with religion. Yet the right distorted this into this massive campaign to destroy religious freedom in America. The irony is that 69% of American Catholics actually *supported* the policy, but who cares what the people think when there's good propaganda to be had. The leftists knew this was a heaping pile of bullshit, but the religious right bought it hook, line, and sinker. Once again, the religious zealots came flying out of their hidey holes to do battle with the pissed off liberals and atheists -- and that, predictably enough, resurfaced the gay rights and abortion issues ...

And speaking of abortion, that touched off the second "war," this one the very REAL "War on Women." Republicans all over America introduced over 600 (!!) anti-abortion bills trying to make it more difficult for women to obtain them. There was a major campaign to defund Planned Parenthood. This war is when several Republicans started staying the stupidest things like how the "female reproductive system shuts down during a legitimate rape" or the other guy who said that "if a woman is impregnanted by a rape, God intended it." Wow, the leftists went through the roof and the Republicans began losing female support in droves. Even Republican women were protesting the capitals of several Southern states!

Finally, there was the "Class Wafare" that even billionaire Warren Buffet said was very real. His actual words were, "If this is a war, my side has the nuclear bomb." The "haves" vs. "the have nots" surfaced with the passage of Obamacare. The right-wing politicians and their sycophants were pretty much telling the poor, homeless, and umemployed to "let them eat cake" during the worst recession in American history. Obama knew that the American people needed relief and they needed it NOW. Meanwhile, the conservatives -- even the religious ones -- were advocating a form of Social Darwinism and unrestrained free market capitalism that would literally cost 102,000 American deaths per year due to easily treatable medical conditions. The right-wingers went ballistic when some states began extending unemployment insurance out to 2 years. Of course, the Republicans called these unemployed Americans "freeloaders," "moochers," and the ever-popular "they're sucking on the tit of government" ... while simultaneously railing against the high unemployment rate and Obama's failure to stimulate the economy (i.e. the conservatives were saying, "Hey, why aren't you getting a job! A 10% unemployment rate is no excuse!").

Well, the leftists were sick of their crap, especially when the exact cause of the recession was made fully known. So began the Occupy Wall Street movement. The left saw them as heroes, the right saw them as hippies and criminals. Bam! Now right and left are clashing again, this time on the streets and public parks of every major and minor city in the United States.

And what infuriated the leftists even more was the hyperbolic propaganda that the right was using against Obama. Remember those fringy Truther people? Well, the right-wingers picked up all of their conspiracist bullshit and made it mainstream. Instead of it being confined to a fringe movement, the right brought it all out into the open and used it against Obama. Birther conspiracies, ties with terrorists conspiracies, Muslim Brotherhood conspiracies ... they even used the same "false-flag, suspend elections, declare martial law, FEMA camp" conspiracies that the fringe movement used against Bush ... right down to the exact wording! Only it was no longer fringe, it was being said by mainstream politicians like Sarah Palin and Tea Party representatives.

Oh, and don't get me started on Congress; when the Democrats lost the House of Representatives in the 2010 election, everything went to shit -- and the lefitsts knew exactly why. Some of the congressional candidates ran on no other platform than to see Obama ousted from power in 2012. That was it. Republicans used historical levels of filibustering and wasted tax payer dollars making official resolutions like reaffirming the national motto as "In God We Trust." The leftists saw this as a "rub it in your face" snub that suggested tyrannical religion was just around the corner. But the GOP obstructionist actions that deliberately tried to make Obama ineffective in *everything* he did was the last straw for leftists who believed conservatives would throw the entire nation under the bus if they thought it would get rid of Obama.

ArrrrrrrghhhhH!

Okay, I'm going to end it here. I didn't even get to Romney's nomination and the horrible campaign we just witnessed.

But if anyone made it through my entire post, hopefully it shows you that it's not our two party system that has caused this polarization. This is truly a war between two ideologies, two worldviews, two visions for America's future. Even if there were 20 parties, all 20 would end up on one side or the other and we'd have essentially two parties again. There is so much going on that the complexity of it could drive one crazy. It's hard for me to keep up and I have a lot of time on my hands. I can't imagine how a 'normal' American deals with it juggling work, kids, spouses, friends, domestic chores, etc. etc. It makes me wonder sometimes if we're even really capable of a true democracy, for that requires and informed electorate. Unfortunately, so much of the vote will be decided by propaganda from both sides, and facts are just dust in the wind.

Fascinating as it is to read a thorogh exposition of the circumstances surrounding 9/11, it's very apparent that the Dubbya Bush administration decided that someone had to pay and for historical reasons connected with Bush's Daddy, Saddam Hussain was the chosen anointed for America's wrath. It took several more years before the true author was dealt with.

Brilliant post, Shirina

And today the path of all our futures looks the take the next turn along the way.

Shirina wrote:-
But if anyone made it through my entire post....

You bet I did; it's brilliant, so informative and so comprehensive.

Liberals, especially, began criticizing GW Bush for invading Iraq since Iraq had absolutely nothing to do with 9/11

Perhaps this quote from ‘The Shock Doctrine’ (p.313) by Naomi Klein, written in 2007, explains why Bush and, sadly Blair, were so keen to invade Iraq when it had no relevance to their ‘war on terror’ with al-Qaeda:-

“Saddam did not pose a threat to US security, but he did pose a threat to US energy companies, since he had recently signed contracts with a Russian oil giant and was in negotiations with France’s Total, leaving US and British oil firms with nothing; the third-largest proven oil resources in the world were slipping out of the Anglo-American grasp. Saddam’s removal from power has opened vistas of opportunities for the oil giants, including Exxon-Mobil, Chevron, Shell and BP, all of whom have been laying the groundwork for new deals in Iraq, as well as for Halliburton, which, with its move to Dubai, is perfectly positioned to sell its energy services to all these companies. Already the war itself has been the single most profitable event in Halliburton’s history.”

Dick Cheney, the Defence Secretary of the first George Bush, and the Vice President of the second one, had made himself a fortune when he was CEO of Halliburton. Before stepping down to be Bush's running mate in 2000, he negotiated a retirement package that left him loaded with Halliburton stocks and shares. He agreed to sell some of them after a lot of media attention, making $18.5 million profit, but he didn’t cash out completely.

The Iraq war was very profitable for Halliburton, and did have the benefit of removing one of the most murderous tyrants in the world, but it wasn’t quite so good for the 4,487 US and 179 UK service personnel who lost their lives, along with 139 from other coalition countries. And that’s before we mention in excess of 100,000 Iraqi citizens (most of whom were killed by other Iraqis) who died in a conflict which set up an American corporatist state in the Middle East.

http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/world-middle-east-11107739

At least we can all breathe a sigh of relief that these neo-con Republicans haven’t captured the presidency again for the purposes of continuing their crony capitalism.

Perhaps my extreme distaste for Paul and those who didn’t take him to task for his despicable remark stems from the fact that he’s a… he’s a… he’s a Texan. My God!

In some ways I find Libertarians worse than Republicans. Gary Johnson didn't seem too horrible, but again, his flat tax scheme was a game breaker.

The concertina effect of changes in public attitude was probably due to the steadily increasing speed of communications. America has never had a truly national newspaper, so it was the advent of television which held up a mirror to the whole population at once.