If you were American how would you vote?

[Architype]

I can predict the outcome of the poll, but just want to see if the results are that predictable.
Please elaborate if you feel like it.
The poll is private, and not multiple choice.

[FrAnKs]

Democratic party, cause I can't feel the other mormon

[JHikka]

Bracing for trainwreck of a thread in 3...2..1..

[Gresto]

I would vote for Jill Stein of the Green Party.

[TallBob]

Obama! And it is close but really can't understand why!

[cormiermax]

They all suck, Obama I guess...

[armorand93]

Obama. We wont be sending Canada into World War Three...

[Nicko999]

Obama

[Chadillaccc]

I guess this is as good a thread as any to write my 2000th post.




Barack Obama.

[SignalHillHiker]

Barack Obama. No question. He is not perfect but the radical, nearing fascist right wing is a non-starter for me. It is easy to choose between imperfect and insane.

[The Chemist]

Obama. I'm not a huge fan of his, but considering the alternative... :(

Can't believe a guy who was quoted on tape writing off nearly half the country as 'victims' and 'dependent on government handouts' still has a chance to win the election. The influence the religious right has on US politics is absurd.

[Aylmer]

Obama. The Democrats aren't nearly as scary as the GOP, but if Obama ran in Canada, he'd be more right-wing than anything we have (unless, of course, he's a closet socialist and he's only being held back by the American electorate!). So yeah.

[kool maudit]

obama, but i would caution against extreme democratic partisanship. once you decide that there is one sane party and one insane party, or one good party and one evil party, you travel beyond politics into a sort of manichean realm. you effectively endorse a one-party system, a situation of permanent rule.

it's better to look at why your opponents feel the way they do, why they think the way they do. there are reasons, and you're pretty lazy if you substitute a "because they're rednecks" for reading up on the history and practice of conservative thought.

edit: i am not going to expend the amount of energy i did in the quebec thread acting as an apologist for positions i don't personally support. so if you reply with, like, "how can you say they're not evil and stupid! look at [insert favored issue]," i won't engage. i favor thoughtfulness, that's all.

[eemy]

Obama! And it is close but really can't understand why!

It will all be dissected after the elections; however, I have read that generally elections seem far more close and divisive because the media goes out of its way to make it seem that way. Close and divisive sells.

I've heard it twice within the last twenty four hours and think there's some truth to it. Americans like simple answers to complex questions. This makes the electorate in the US susceptible to ideology which leads to this black and white, good and evil paradigm that seems to exist in US politics.

[SignalHillHiker]

obama, but i would caution against extreme democratic partisanship. once you decide that there is one sane party and one insane party, or one good party and one evil party, you travel beyond politics into a sort of manichean realm. you effectively endorse a one-party system, a situation of permanent rule.

it's better to look at why your opponents feel the way they do, why they think the way they do. there are reasons, and you're pretty lazy if you substitute a "because they're rednecks" for reading up on the history and practice of conservative thought.

edit: i am not going to expend the amount of energy i did in the quebec thread acting as an apologist for positions i don't personally support. so if you reply with, like, "how can you say they're not evil and stupid! look at [insert favored issue]," i won't engage. i favor thoughtfulness, that's all.

Well... ideally, I agree.

But it's just sssooo hard. *stamps feet*

EDIT: Joking aside, the right-wing in American politics, from the outside looking in, appears ideologically opposed to dialogue and compromise. If that is indeed accurate, even if only for the leaders and their core, base supporters - what can the other side do? It's too risky to just sit back and wait for the right-wing to destroy itself, as it always eventually does, because those who oppose it initially are often destroyed as part of that process.

[flar]

Third party

[kwoldtimer]

I would be very tempted to cast a blank ballot, but I would be concerned that the electoral process has become so corrupt that my ballot would be misused, so I think I might not vote.

[kool maudit]

the right-wing does act as a bloc more than the left. it's less fractious by nature, the disparate parts of the coalition aren't so far apart. there are differences, though. paleo-cons and neo-cons and whatever really do believe different things. i think the republican party is less extreme than its rhetoric supposes. they actually sort of sell out their base pretty regularly. they campaign on these extreme-sounding issues, but when they get elected they're just sort of these businessmen. immigration under george w. actually increased.

[Welkin]

I would definitely vote for Obama. I have never seen a major party candidate like Romney openly lie so much with out any concerns for for repercussions. That man will say anything and has said everything in order to get elected. The fact that the election is so close just proves that most Americans are just as dumb as rocks or that many of them would vote for Satan himself rather than Obama. For many Americans it is just about God, gays, guns and keeping the whites in power. They are the sad underbelly of an otherwise good country.

[kool maudit]

all that said, if you oppose them, you should oppose them. i just get wary of a presidential candidate sort of being a "default setting for all intelligent people" or whatever. surely there's room to differ.

they're all fucking bagmen anyway. the cia runs the empire.

[kool maudit]

For many Americans it is just about God, gays, guns and keeping the whites in power.





romney has zero support among black people. that's not hyperbole, it's a stat.

surely overweening racial solidarity is not solely (or even mainly) a white problem?

[PoscStudent]

I'd likely vote for Gary Johnson.

[MonctonRad]

I am a half American (mother born in Maine), but only a Canadian by citizenship. I am also an old fashioned progressive conservative.

If I were an American, I would likely be a Democrat, or possibly a moderate Republican (RINO), if they exist any more.....

In this election I would unquestionably vote Obama. The tea party scares the bejesus out of me. I feel Romney may have made too many secret promises to the Republic right to be trusted. If Obama oesn't win, we are all in very deep trouble..... :(

[vid]

Moderate Republicans exist at the state level, but federally, while most Republicans are still moderate, the party has been taken over by extremists and their voices are drowned out.

US politics is basically controlled by special interest groups.

[isaidso]

Don't care about US politics. It's a circus and their political system is broken. I care 100 times more about domestic politics.

[Innsertnamehere]

Depends what state I am voting in. If its a swing state, Obama. But if it is a state that is solid for either Obama or Romney, I would vote 3rd party.

Important to note that BBC did a survey and detirmined that if Canadians could vote, only 9% would vote for Romney.

[vid]

I care 100 times more about domestic politics.

Then you should probably care about what our largest and most influential neighbour is doing. You have to be very ignorant of Canada to claim that the US has little affect on us.

[Doug]

Cautiously Republican. Neither party, nor the electorate, is ready to address the only issue that matters, which is the deficit. The Republicans would be more likely to restrain spending. I'd like to see a scorched earth approach taken to the entire budget, especially Defence and the Public Service. I'd also be in favor of expiry of the Bush tax cuts, a 5% national VAT, $1/gal increase in federal fuel tax and capping mortgage interest deductibility to say $250K.

I personally can't stand Obama, but try not to let that cloud my judgement. I automatically distrust people who rely on their own charm to push an agenda.

[north 42]

I would vote for Obama, and since my husband is an American citizen, he will be voting for Obama!

[SpongeG]

honeybooboo for president!

i wonder how many write in votes she will get

[manny_santos]

I'm split between Kang and Kodos.

[SpongeG]

in all seriousness though there is a commercial running on seattle tv about how every election 1000's of votes are wasted on sasquatch, superman, whatever and please to take voting seriously and vote responsibly to that effect

i wonder why they allow that blank write in spot anyway

[Dirt_Devil]

I'd vote Romney without hesitation.

[Gresto]

the right-wing does act as a bloc more than the left. it's less fractious by nature, the disparate parts of the coalition aren't so far apart.
Well, that's the definition of "conservative". Less open to alternatives.

[RyeJay]

It doesn't matter who is elected in America on Tuesday. Presidents have to get through both congress and the senate. The senate will stay in control of the Democrats -- and congress will remain under Republican control.

After Tuesday's election, the gridlock and political theatrics will continue, as their economic and environmental debt climbs.

I'm certainly happy that Canada is seeking out other trading partners.

America is too corrupted by large, international corporations, able to make unlimited political campaign contributions.

And America is too uneducated to function. Most voters only have a very shallow understanding of their deep, complex issues. It's like Honey Boo Boo trying to do calculus. Good. Fuckin. Luck.

They still argue over abortion rights and question evolution......... :haha:

Meanwhile, in reality, the 'freak weather' will continue damaging their economy as they refuse to prepare for more of what's coming(i.e.: the severe spring tornadoes, the drought that lasted all summer, hurricane sandy, etc...), as Rapid Climate Change is still largely considered a hoax in Republican states.

Oh, and socialism is bad word down there -- unless, of course, it's for socialised healthcare for members of government -- or for their socialised military.....

[RyeJay]

For what it's worth: I'd vote for that..umm...what's his name? The black, muslim, socialist, marxist, European-lovin', gay-lovin', gun-hatin', anti-business, anti-Christ, Harvard snob, food stamper...Obama...is it?

It's good to get all of your information from FOX News, especially when the only book you've ever opened is your bible. That way you can vote according to your 'gut feeling'.

[Doug]

the right-wing does act as a bloc more than the left. it's less fractious by nature, the disparate parts of the coalition aren't so far apart. there are differences, though. paleo-cons and neo-cons and whatever really do believe different things. i think the republican party is less extreme than its rhetoric supposes. they actually sort of sell out their base pretty regularly. they campaign on these extreme-sounding issues, but when they get elected they're just sort of these businessmen. immigration under george w. actually increased.

Everyone thinks the other side is more ideological.

[Doug]

It doesn't matter who is elected in America on Tuesday. Presidents have to get through both congress and the senate. The senate will stay in control of the Democrats -- and congress will remain under Republican control.

After Tuesday's election, the gridlock and political theatrics will continue, as their economic and environmental debt climbs.



Yeah this is what I expect. Still think a more reasonable budget compromise would happen under a Romney presidency.

[Waterlooson]

it doesn't matter who is elected in america on tuesday. Presidents have to get through both congress and the senate. The senate will stay in control of the democrats -- and congress will remain under republican control.

After tuesday's election, the gridlock and political theatrics will continue, as their economic and environmental debt climbs.

I'm certainly happy that canada is seeking out other trading partners.

America is too corrupted by large, international corporations, able to make unlimited political campaign contributions.

And america is too uneducated to function. Most voters only have a very shallow understanding of their deep, complex issues. It's like honey boo boo trying to do calculus. Good. Fuckin. Luck.

They still argue over abortion rights and question evolution......... :haha:

Meanwhile, in reality, the 'freak weather' will continue damaging their economy as they refuse to prepare for more of what's coming(i.e.: The severe spring tornadoes, the drought that lasted all summer, hurricane sandy, etc...), as rapid climate change is still largely considered a hoax in republican states.

Oh, and socialism is bad word down there -- unless, of course, it's for socialised healthcare for members of government -- or for their socialised military.....


+1

[Waterlooson]

For what it's worth: I'd vote for that..umm...what's his name? The black, muslim, socialist, marxist, European-lovin', gay-lovin', gun-hatin', anti-business, anti-Christ, Harvard snob, food stamper...Obama...is it?

It's good to get all of your information from FOX News, especially when the only book you've ever opened is your bible. That way you can vote according to your 'gut feeling'.

LOL... yes, 'merkins are out buying guns like crazy before Osama (sic) can ban them.

[Bankview]

Obama.

Romney simply isn't an option, nor is the party he represents. They cannot be allowed anywhere near the Oval Office, for a good long time. They're terrifying.

[RyeJay]

Yeah this US what I expect. Still think a more reasonable budget compromise would happen under a Romney presidency.

Absolutely disagree. America needs to invest in itself, and secure its system of capitalism -- which is fed by consumers. Instead of income-based economics that would create broad consumerism (a middle-class), Romney wants to continue trickle-down theories (tax cuts for the rich) -- which do not work because the economy is globalised. Investors simply take the money they save via tax cuts and invest where the labour is cheap (China, India, etc...).

Romney wants to INCREASE military spending. It is unsustainable at its current level. The United States is the largest military power in the world, many many many many times over. Take the next ten top military countries: America is more armed and capable than all of them combined!! It's insanity!! They need to stop being so damned paranoid.

And let us not forget that America is the last civilised nation without socialised healthcare. So believe this should exempt them from being labelled as civilised.

I wish they could go back to the days of the 1950's, economically... when the super rich paid their fair share in taxes.

[RyeJay]

LOL... yes, 'merkins are out buying guns like crazy before Osama (sic) can ban them.

Well duh! And they better be buying semi-automatics too! The more quickly you can kill, the safer America will be... :rolleyes:

[RyeJay]

Obama.

Romney simply isn't an option, nor is the party he represents. They cannot be allowed anywhere near the Oval Office, for a good long time. They're terrifying.

Even the Democrats are fairly conservative. There isn't much political rationality south of the border, I'm afraid.

To be honest, I've wondered about how much longer the states will remain 'united'. The Republican states are a major cancer on the union. Much of the south still celebrates the civil war........... which is like celebrating slavery :koko:

[someone123]

Cautiously Republican. Neither party, nor the electorate, is ready to address the only issue that matters, which is the deficit. The Republicans would be more likely to restrain spending. I'd like to see a scorched earth approach taken to the entire budget, especially Defence and the Public Service. I'd also be in favor of expiry of the Bush tax cuts, a 5% national VAT, $1/gal increase in federal fuel tax and capping mortgage interest deductibility to say $250K.

The Republicans may spend less, but they don't seem willing to raise taxes. It's troubling that the US is nowhere near where it needs to be to deal with problems that have been building for years.

Unfortunately it appears that there are serious structural problems in US politics that are not going to be solved by choosing one presidential candidate over another. There are so many areas where both parties make decisions to benefit special interests rather than doing what is best for the country as a whole.

[someone123]

To be honest, I've wondered about how much longer the states will remain 'united'.

I think there is more of an urban-rural divide and a class divide than a divide between states as such.

The big thing that worries me is how much social strain is building in the US as middle class fortunes erode and so much government policy is implemented to benefit the wealthy and powerful. Changes in the global economy are making this even worse since the value of so many different types of labour has been falling.

[RyeJay]

The Republicans may spend less, but they don't seem willing to raise taxes. It's troubling that the US is nowhere near where it needs to be to deal with problems that have been building for years.

Unfortunately it appears that there are serious structural problems in US politics that are not going to be solved by choosing one presidential candidate over another. There are so many areas where both parties make decisions to benefit special interests rather than doing what is best for the country as a whole.

Agreed.

Americans are a big cash crop for corporations.

Structurally, there is far too much divide in governmental powers. They criticise Obama as though he's made so many radical decisions.....but in reality congress has blocked so many of Obama's efforts. Progress in America can always be stopped. Their system is designed for the status quo to always remain.

What will a rock bottom look like for them? :(

I love New England and the entire west coast. I'd be in favour of Canada adopting them :) ...And as comical as that may seem, it's something to think about. Realistically it most likely will never happen, obviously. But culturally, we share so much in common.

The American provinces of Canada. It has a good ring to it.

[RyeJay]

I think there is more of an urban-rural divide and a class divide than a divide between states as such.

The big thing that worries me is how much social strain is building in the US as middle class fortunes erode and so much government policy is implemented to benefit the wealthy and powerful. Changes in the global economy are making this even worse since the value of so many different types of labour has been falling.

I agree with you, however, there are many states that are mostly rural. Hello mid-west...

[Doug]

Absolutely disagree. America needs to invest in itself, and secure its system of capitalism -- which is fed by consumers. Instead of income-based economics that would create broad consumerism (a middle-class), Romney wants to continue trickle-down theories (tax cuts for the rich) -- which do not work because the economy is globalised. Investors simply take the money they save via tax cuts and invest where the labour is cheap (China, India, etc...).

Romney wants to INCREASE military spending. It is unsustainable at its current level. The United States is the largest military power in the world, many many many many times over. Take the next ten top military countries: America is more armed and capable than all of them combined!! It's insanity!! They need to stop being so damned paranoid.

And let us not forget that America is the last civilised nation without socialised healthcare. So believe this should exempt them from being labelled as civilised.

I wish they could go back to the days of the 1950's, economically... when the super rich paid their fair share in taxes.

The bond markets will cut off the US government. Austerity is a given. The sooner it happens the less severe it will be. Both parties are delusional in their assumptions for economic growth and timelines to balance the budget.

[kool maudit]

Well, that's the definition of "conservative". Less open to alternatives.



yeah, defence of tradition and all that. the belief that long-established folkways reflect innate human qualities. of course, the republican party doesn't really behave that way. they behave like radical, nominalist businessmen, and that's what they are.

still, conservatism -- of temperament, and not necessarily of politics even -- is a good human trait. it's a key part of the mixture. it shouldn't be innately offensive if someone chooses to emphasize it over more modish ideas of openness and such. everything has its time and place. i suspect that there are ideas which seemed very avant-garde in, say, 1961, which will soon seem quite inadequate.

[Darkoshvilli]

Bronco Bamma

[RyeJay]

The bond markets will cut off the US government. Austerity is a given. The sooner it happens the less severe it will be. Both parties are delusional in their assumptions for economic growth and timelines to balance the budget.

Austerity for WHAT though?...
Capitalism depends on consumerism, so they cannot make extreme social cuts because if they do they will be compromising their growth.

The rich have been benefitting for many decades -- especially under the Bush tax cuts -- but they are only a minor portion of America's purchasing power. Economies grow best with a large middle-class.

[RyeJay]

Bronco Bamma

:haha:

Don't cry. The election is almost over.

(I'm so damn glad that Canada has short elections. Though, now that we have fixed-term elections, this will begin to change. As we approach the next federal election, Canadians will see American style political ads for many months. Fuck you, Harper, for ruining our parliamentary system.)

[Xelebes]

Agreed.

Americans are a big cash crop for corporations.

Structurally, there is far too much divide in governmental powers. They criticise Obama as though he's made so many radical decisions.....but in reality congress has blocked so many of Obama's efforts. Progress in America can always be stopped. Their system is designed for the status quo to always remain.

They do seem to pass constitutional amendments with ease. Sometimes too easily. Sometimes not easily enough.

[JHikka]

:haha:

Don't cry. The election is almost over.

(I'm so damn glad that Canada has short elections. Though, now that we have fixed-term elections, this will begin to change. As we approach the next federal election, Canadians will see American style political ads for many months. Fuck you, Harper, for ruining our parliamentary system.)

What, it's Harper's fault for winning a majority? :haha:

[SignalHillHiker]

What, it's Harper's fault for winning a majority? :haha:

Well, he certainly didn't win anything close to a majority of the votes. ;)

[vid]

It's the electoral system's fault for not actually representing the people's voice. It was designed against us from the start. Only eight elections in, we had someone win a majority but lose the popular vote, and we had a two party system at the time!

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Canadian_federal_election,_1896

[Doug]

Well, he certainly didn't win anything close to a majority of the votes. ;)

Not many PM's have. In recent history only Mulroney pulled in a majority of votes.

[Doug]

Austerity for WHAT though?...
Capitalism depends on consumerism, so they cannot make extreme social cuts because if they do they will be compromising their growth.

The rich have been benefitting for many decades -- especially under the Bush tax cuts -- but they are only a minor portion of America's purchasing power. Economies grow best with a large middle-class.

That's an opinion. Another is that once the budget is on the path to balance, consumers and business will spend as tax policy and credit markets will become more certain.

My political views are jaded by the Canadian experience of the 80's and early to mid 90's. The prevailing view that austerity would be harmful to the economy proved incorrect.

[Doug]

yeah, defence of tradition and all that. the belief that long-established folkways reflect innate human qualities. of course, the republican party doesn't really behave that way. they behave like radical, nominalist businessmen, and that's what they are.

still, conservatism -- of temperament, and not necessarily of politics even -- is a good human trait. it's a key part of the mixture. it shouldn't be innately offensive if someone chooses to emphasize it over more modish ideas of openness and such. everything has its time and place. i suspect that there are ideas which seemed very avant-garde in, say, 1961, which will soon seem quite inadequate.

Is this still true? Neo-liberals are considered conservatives. The real spectrum is between those who support government as a change agent or merely as a manager.

[logan5]

Romney is a corporate jack-ass. It boggles my mind that he gets so much consideration from the American voters. Here's my favorite moment from the debates, with Obama leaving Romney gasping for air after being power kicked in the nuts.

MfkOXQXdUjs

[rbt]

The bond markets will cut off the US government.

They're an extremely long way from that; their current 30-year rate is 2.91% for treasury bonds with 10 year being significantly lower than that. Even Japan pays under 2% on their 30-year despite having a much higher debt load than the USA relative to GDP.

I think the USA could borrow 40 trillion at their current GDP level and still find buyers for 30-year bonds at rates below 7% (widely considered the marker for being in trouble). It wouldn't be very good for them in the long-term but it could be done in the short-term; particularlay in the name of war.

[SignalHillHiker]

With Romney... my distaste extends far beyond my admittedly liberal political views. He's a liar and an opportunist. He offers absolutely nothing because his word is worthless. At least George W. Bush, who I genuinely hate, stood for something. And he even did some good in addition to all his horrific, deadly policies. There are many African men, women and children alive today because of him.

But Romney... yech. And his business history? Vulture capitalism. He produced NOTHING of value to ANYONE other than his own shareholders.

And he has that same mechanical, fake nature - where you can just sense that the on-screen persona is COMPLETELY different from the real man - as Stephen Harper, who, I admit with some shame, makes me feel like a high school bully. I fantasize about pulling his sweater vest over his head, kicking him in the nuts, and calling him a fat f*** in the schoolyard.

[Aylmer]

And America is too uneducated to function. Most voters only have a very shallow understanding of their deep, complex issues. It's like Honey Boo Boo trying to do calculus. Good. Fuckin. Luck.





Well, this is something that most definitely extends here. I cry for society every time I hear 'I liked his moustache!' or 'I just want a stable government.' I do. I really do.

People rarely take even a half-hour during an entire campaign to actually read the news, let alone run through a platform. The only advantage is seeing their faces when I ask them to name the policies of (politician or party X) that they agree with the most. Total blank almost every time. :tup:

[Welkin]

They do seem to pass constitutional amendments with ease. Sometimes too easily. Sometimes not easily enough.

The last one was passed in 1971. I don't think they pass them too easily.

[vid]

At least they were able to get all of their states to ratify their constitution.

[Waterlooson]

With Romney... my distaste extends far beyond my admittedly liberal political views. He's a liar and an opportunist. He offers absolutely nothing because his word is worthless. At least George W. Bush, who I genuinely hate, stood for something. And he even did some good in addition to all his horrific, deadly policies. There are many African men, women and children alive today because of him.

But Romney... yech. And his business history? Vulture capitalism. He produced NOTHING of value to ANYONE other than his own shareholders.

And he has that same mechanical, fake nature - where you can just sense that the on-screen persona is COMPLETELY different from the real man - as Stephen Harper, who, I admit with some shame, makes me feel like a high school bully. I fantasize about pulling his sweater vest over his head, kicking him in the nuts, and calling him a fat f*** in the schoolyard.

I'll just say that Romney is a kinder, gentler version of Gordon Gekko. It's looking like there is no need for the US election... we have decided it all for them.

[rousseau]

Romney is such a transparent fake. Everything he says oozes with fraud.

Looking back over the years:

1. Carter was an aw shucks loser
2. Reagan was a scarily senile ideologue
3. Bush the first was a fairly reasonable and decent guy
4. Clinton was a huckster, but he had charisma
5. Bush the second was a moron
6. Obama is a calm, sane person

You don't normally go around touting someone as "not insane," but the Republican base of the last thirty years begs the comparison because there is so much that is absolutely bonkers there. Exhibit one of many? In 2008 almost one-half of the electorate in the U.S. woke up one day and declared that they were completely comfortable with Sarah Palin being in charge of the world's largest and most dangerous nuclear arsenal.

They're unhinged. The fundamentalist Christianity, the excessive patriotism and self-regard, the opposition to gay rights, the gun lobby, the "Tea Party," the obsequious genuflection toward the military, et cetera ad infinitum...it's a horrific spectacle that the rest of the developed and industrialized world views with grim fascination and horror.

It's insane. What disturbs me mostly, though, is how some of that insanity has leaked across the border and infected Harper's base. We can't allow ourselves to indulge in schadenfreude, but we (calm, rational Canadians, not you Tory twats) have to work our butts off to make sure Harper gets booted the fuck out of office next election. That should mean sacrificing your sacred NDP or Green vote to the Liberals if necessary.

[Spocket]

So , your choices are limited to yet another religious wingnut or an ideological wingnut .

Last time I would have voted for Obama were I American but considering his track record of pretty much manufacturing a "war on women" while simultaneously conducting one against men , I'm pretty sure it's clear that this guy has no idea how to run a country .

[Xelebes]

So , your choices are limited to yet another religious wingnut or an ideological wingnut .

Last time I would have voted for Obama were I American but considering his track record of pretty much manufacturing a "war on women" while simultaneously conducting one against men , I'm pretty sure it's clear that this guy has no idea how to run a country .

He manufactured the "War on Women"? It wasn't Obama who coined it (it would be the women commentators and pundits) nor did he start it (it would be the Tea Party shown with its breeches breeched and flying.)

[rousseau]

I'm pretty sure it's clear that this guy has no idea how to run a country .
He just guided the country through the worst recession since the 1930s and toward a modest recovery. All of the numbers and indicators are looking up. Romney's economic plans make zero sense. Granted, presidents tend to be inordinately lauded or blamed for the good and the bad, but claiming that Obama has "no idea how to run a country" is idiotic.

Obama hasn't repaired the assaults on civil liberties that Bush put into place. As a non-American I don't care about that, but I do care about the fact that drones are flying over several countries and killing civilians. Liberals in the U.S. tend to gloss over Obama's lack of "hope and change" in the area of American crimes outside its borders. Though, having said that, Romney wants to attack Iran, which would be a crime of an exponentially greater magnitude.

[RyeJay]

So , your choices are limited to yet another religious wingnut or an ideological wingnut .

Last time I would have voted for Obama were I American but considering his track record of pretty much manufacturing a "war on women" while simultaneously conducting one against men , I'm pretty sure it's clear that this guy has no idea how to run a country .

Statistically, women DO get paid less, for doing equal work, than men. And it seems as though you're fine with this. You could be sexist.

A woman's right to an abortion is under fire in almost every state. And it seems as though you're fine with this. You could be sexist.

The Republicans, in their rhetoric, use melodramatic terms such as "war on women," just as you are simultaneously suggesting Obama is conducting one against men :koko: What evidence of this do you have?.......talking points from FOX & Friends?....:haha:

[Gresto]

And he has that same mechanical, fake nature - where you can just sense that the on-screen persona is COMPLETELY different from the real man - as Stephen Harper, who, I admit with some shame, makes me feel like a high school bully. I fantasize about pulling his sweater vest over his head, kicking him in the nuts, and calling him a fat f*** in the schoolyard.
Now that wouldn't be becoming, or right...at all. I don't feel like seeing him hurt; I feel like seeing him and his smug compatriots, some of whom are much harder to abide than he is, tossed out of office. I agree with you about how his phony public persona is somewhat similar to that of Romney's, though Romney is even less natural and more transparently full of shit. Harper isn't anywhere near as smarmy and his manner has improved a bit over his surviving-by-the-skin-of-his-teeth years in power. He's unexcitable, which isn't a bad trait.
But to me the party platform is infinitely, infinitely more important than the personality, or lack thereof, of a party's leader. I would rather have a stick figure promoting policies of which I approve than an effulgently charismatic person standing for policies that are inimical to me.

Your crack about the sweater reminded me of this great Layton zinger from a debate from 3 or 4 years ago:
2jeNdGnVWYg

[Spocket]

Statistically, women DO get paid less, for doing equal work, than men. And it seems as though you're fine with this. You could be sexist.
Well , you'd be wrong on two counts but we'll focus on only one for now .
Women DO make equal pay for equal work but that's the caveat ... it has to be equal . As in , same job , same number of hours logged consecutively , no leaves of absence , same negotiated starting salary .
Women take maternity leave for example . While nobody is saying that we should scrap maternity leave or anything about it , is it really fair to expect to be promoted or be credited with experience when you're not actually working at a job ? Of course not . Then , if you look at unskilled labour , what you usually see is that women may become cashiers while men may become construction labourers . Construction is dirty , dangerous , physically taxing , and takes place in the least desirable of places . People get paid more for that kind of work for a reason even if it's also unskilled .
There are whole host of reasons that women don't make as much as men AS A GROUP that have absolutely nothing to do with discrimination or sexism . They have everything to do with the choices that women make . Women tend to seek a greater work/life balance .
Go ahead though ... repeat the propaganda you've been fed and do the Pavlovian thing . Call me a sexist or a misogynist for actually knowing what I'm talking about . It's pretty much the standard reply to facts when feminists encounter them and don't like them .
Oh , and by the way , don't just take my word for it , look it up . EVERY peer-reviewed study on the matter has concluded again and again for decades now that when you actually include all the factors , there is virtually no wage gap .

A woman's right to an abortion is under fire in almost every state. And it seems as though you're fine with this. You could be sexist.
Firstly , I could care less about fighting for or against abortion . While I don't agree with it , it has nothing to do with religion or otherwise 'right wing' ideology . I just think of it in terms of erring on the side of caution . Nevertheless , it's legal so that's enough for me .
Now , if you want to argue about why only women should have a say in the matter then I'll put it to you : Why should women only have a say in the matter of abortion ?
Better yet , let me ask you a question : With the exception of health , what reason is there for allowing women the option of aborting a child while not simultaneously allowing men the same ? She doesn't have money ? Okay ... what makes him rich all of a sudden ? She's not old enough ? Why doesn't that apply to him ? She simply doesn't want a baby ? What if he doesn't want it either ?
You see , when you frame it solely as a women's issue while completely ignoring the other party involved in all pregnancies , you're being a sexist . Oh sure , you've been taught that only men can be sexist towards women but the truth is that there's no good reason to allow women the right to abort their responsibility without providing the same rights to men .
As for abortion being under attack , sure , I'd agree that that's true . Well , you call it an attack but only because you've decided that it's not a baby inside a pregnant woman . Me , I don't know when it goes from being a lump of flesh to a baby so I simply refuse to ponder the imponderable . As I said , I err on the side of caution . Most Republicans seem to think that it's a baby the minute a woman says yes to sex . Most Democrats seem to think that post-birth abortions are just fine . Ridiculous that I'd say such a thing but then again , you simply assumed that I think women should have their right to abortion struck down . I guess that makes you equally ridiculous .

The Republicans, in their rhetoric, use melodramatic terms such as "war on women," just as you are simultaneously suggesting Obama is conducting one against men :koko: What evidence of this do you have?.......talking points from FOX & Friends?....:haha:
Firstly , it was the Democrats who initially started flinging around this nonsense about a Republican "war on women" . You shouldn't have to step back very far from the subject to see that it's just a bunch of hyperbole coming from both sides in their attempts to sway female voters .

Now let me ask you something : When was the last time you called up the Department of Men's Health ? Okay , not fair ... no such department exists . So maybe the Office of Men's Affairs ? No ? Hmmmm... well , maybe there's some symposium or committee looking into the matter . No ? Oh . Well , that's strange . There's thousands of departments , committees , offices , civil servants , and hell , even hospitals dedicated solely to women . Well , that's great for women but it seems a bit strange . I mean , men die younger , generally lead less healthy lives , make up the vast majority of the homeless , those that die on the job , the incarcerated , far and away the largest definable group of victims of crime , are an increasingly shrinking minority on post-secondary educational campuses , are treated to a double-standard in the court systems , have almost no parental rights to their own children despite being harshly sanctioned if they don't support kids that aren't even their own in some cases , and the list goes on .

How sexist of me to ask that men get even a fraction of the attention paid to women . I could have sworn that equality actually meant something to do with "equal" but apparently some are more equal than others in your perception .

Of course , you never , EVER hear about the issues that ALL men face no matter how pressing so of course you're completely ignorant of them . You only know the half of the story that you've had drilled into your head because it's the only one you're allowed to know about . Now comes the part were you do the Pavlovian thing , call me a misogynist , claim that it's not a zero-sum game , am simply expressing my "privilege" , mention Fox News at least twice , and basically lambast me for daring to ask for a few crumbs to help deal with things that you should be shouting from the rooftops about for yourself .
So you may not give a crap about equal treatment and fairness but I actually do and , oh my god ! , that means I think that men should be given equal consideration by the government . Obama doesn't care about men and you don't either but some people still actually do . Romney and the Repukicans may not care about men either but at least they're not planning to tax them to death in order to provide yet more for women alone .

I'm sorry you're such a sexist .

[kool maudit]

we certainly believe in the power of the ____ist word-family in canada.

[isaidso]

Then you should probably care about what our largest and most influential neighbour is doing.

I gave up caring about it 20 years ago. They will plod along in generally the same direction regardless of who wins. I've lived through enough US administrations to realize that Canada will largely continue as it does whether they choose A or B. There's little that makes my eyes glaze over faster than listening to the debate down south.

Reagan, Bush, Clinton, Bush, Obama, ... The only thing that changes is the optics, but it has no tangible effect on my life or Canada and never has.

[Rico Rommheim]

Which puppet leader would you vote for Canada? The conservative one with no real power, or the religious zealot millionaire comservative with no real power?

Thank God this latest charade ends tomorrow, it seems like the 2012 elections have been going on since 1912.

[RyeJay]

Well , you'd be wrong on two counts but we'll focus on only one for now .
Women DO make equal pay for equal work but that's the caveat ... it has to be equal . As in , same job , same number of hours logged consecutively , no leaves of absence , same negotiated starting salary .
Women take maternity leave for example . While nobody is saying that we should scrap maternity leave or anything about it , is it really fair to expect to be promoted or be credited with experience when you're not actually working at a job ? Of course not . Then , if you look at unskilled labour , what you usually see is that women may become cashiers while men may become construction labourers . Construction is dirty , dangerous , physically taxing , and takes place in the least desirable of places . People get paid more for that kind of work for a reason even if it's also unskilled .
There are whole host of reasons that women don't make as much as men AS A GROUP that have absolutely nothing to do with discrimination or sexism . They have everything to do with the choices that women make . Women tend to seek a greater work/life balance .
Go ahead though ... repeat the propaganda you've been fed and do the Pavlovian thing . Call me a sexist or a misogynist for actually knowing what I'm talking about . It's pretty much the standard reply to facts when feminists encounter them and don't like them .
Oh , and by the way , don't just take my word for it , look it up . EVERY peer-reviewed study on the matter has concluded again and again for decades now that when you actually include all the factors , there is virtually no wage gap .

You fail at essay writing. Try to minimise your thesis -- because the paragraphs you've spent wailing about the narrative in which you believe is long-winded and rather boring. And THEN you tell me to go research information to back up your own bullshit. It's both comical and lazy.

Here's some light reading for you, from the U.S. Department of Labor and the U.S. Bureau of Labor Statistics: http://www.bls.gov/cps/cpswom2009.pdf

Firstly , I could care less about fighting for or against abortion . While I don't agree with it , it has nothing to do with religion or otherwise 'right wing' ideology . I just think of it in terms of erring on the side of caution . Nevertheless , it's legal so that's enough for me .
Now , if you want to argue about why only women should have a say in the matter then I'll put it to you : Why should women only have a say in the matter of abortion ?
Better yet , let me ask you a question : With the exception of health , what reason is there for allowing women the option of aborting a child while not simultaneously allowing men the same ? She doesn't have money ? Okay ... what makes him rich all of a sudden ? She's not old enough ? Why doesn't that apply to him ? She simply doesn't want a baby ? What if he doesn't want it either ?
You see , when you frame it solely as a women's issue while completely ignoring the other party involved in all pregnancies , you're being a sexist . Oh sure , you've been taught that only men can be sexist towards women but the truth is that there's no good reason to allow women the right to abort their responsibility without providing the same rights to men .
As for abortion being under attack , sure , I'd agree that that's true . Well , you call it an attack but only because you've decided that it's not a baby inside a pregnant woman . Me , I don't know when it goes from being a lump of flesh to a baby so I simply refuse to ponder the imponderable . As I said , I err on the side of caution . Most Republicans seem to think that it's a baby the minute a woman says yes to sex . Most Democrats seem to think that post-birth abortions are just fine . Ridiculous that I'd say such a thing but then again , you simply assumed that I think women should have their right to abortion struck down . I guess that makes you equally ridiculous .

You "could (sic) care less" about a woman's right to choose? That's pathetic, since you came from one. No one is 'pro-abortion', per se; however, rational people who have at least a brief understanding of science realise that a microscopic embryo isn't yet a person.

I never mentioned anything pertaining to an argument with you about men vetoing what women may do with their own bodies. I assume you don't as well, since you keep jumping from question to question, all of which are beside the point. But for the hell of it, I'll say that men are certainly forfeiting their power in the outcome of what is their act of penetrating the female, as the female must carry the burden of childbearing. Should women have a legal right to object to men wasting the potential life that is their sperm? Absolutely not.

Women's employment equalities aside, reproduction rights require a little bit of sexism, since most members of our species are not intersexed.

I also never claimed women aren't capable of being sexist. This is you now adding more to your rant than need be. You have no clue what I've been taught -- no matter how much of a telepath you may think you are.

I, as well, never assumed anything of you. I said you "seem" fine with what is happening politically to women in the USA, and that you "could" be sexist. I never said you 'are' anything.

I agree with you that you sound ridiculous, though.

Firstly , it was the Democrats who initially started flinging around this nonsense about a Republican "war on women" . You shouldn't have to step back very far from the subject to see that it's just a bunch of hyperbole coming from both sides in their attempts to sway female voters .

Now let me ask you something : When was the last time you called up the Department of Men's Health ? Okay , not fair ... no such department exists . So maybe the Office of Men's Affairs ? No ? Hmmmm... well , maybe there's some symposium or committee looking into the matter . No ? Oh . Well , that's strange . There's thousands of departments , committees , offices , civil servants , and hell , even hospitals dedicated solely to women . Well , that's great for women but it seems a bit strange . I mean , men die younger , generally lead less healthy lives , make up the vast majority of the homeless , those that die on the job , the incarcerated , far and away the largest definable group of victims of crime , are an increasingly shrinking minority on post-secondary educational campuses , are treated to a double-standard in the court systems , have almost no parental rights to their own children despite being harshly sanctioned if they don't support kids that aren't even their own in some cases , and the list goes on .

How sexist of me to ask that men get even a fraction of the attention paid to women . I could have sworn that equality actually meant something to do with "equal" but apparently some are more equal than others in your perception .

Of course , you never , EVER hear about the issues that ALL men face no matter how pressing so of course you're completely ignorant of them . You only know the half of the story that you've had drilled into your head because it's the only one you're allowed to know about . Now comes the part were you do the Pavlovian thing , call me a misogynist , claim that it's not a zero-sum game , am simply expressing my "privilege" , mention Fox News at least twice , and basically lambast me for daring to ask for a few crumbs to help deal with things that you should be shouting from the rooftops about for yourself .
So you may not give a crap about equal treatment and fairness but I actually do and , oh my god ! , that means I think that men should be given equal consideration by the government . Obama doesn't care about men and you don't either but some people still actually do . Romney and the Repukicans may not care about men either but at least they're not planning to tax them to death in order to provide yet more for women alone .

I'm sorry you're such a sexist .

If men are able to get the cost of boner pills provided in their healthcare insurance, women should be able to get their medication covered as well.

I never claimed men aren't discriminated against in many ways. You sure have multiplied a range of redunancies is your response.

And no, not all men face the same forms of discrimination, as you claim, because not all men form relationships that result in reproduction. Dumbass.

[RyeJay]

Which puppet leader would you vote for Canada? The conservative one with no real power, or the religious zealot millionaire comservative with no real power?

:haha: It's true. An exception would be for military instances. Isn't it insane that it's easier for a president to order people to death in foreign countries than it is for a president to bring about domestic healthcare?

[kw5150]

Its so funny how quickly people forget who really ruined the economy through war mongering and shady business......and then the very people who ruined the country now point the finger.

If you vote republican you scare me.

[Acajack]

Cautiously Republican. Neither party, nor the electorate, is ready to address the only issue that matters, which is the deficit. The Republicans would be more likely to restrain spending. I'd like to see a scorched earth approach taken to the entire budget, especially Defence and the Public Service. I'd also be in favor of expiry of the Bush tax cuts, a 5% national VAT, $1/gal increase in federal fuel tax and capping mortgage interest deductibility to say $250K.

I personally can't stand Obama, but try not to let that cloud my judgement. I automatically distrust people who rely on their own charm to push an agenda.

You'd like to see US Defence spending cut yet you favour the Republican candidate? :shrug:

[PoscStudent]

Cautiously Republican. Neither party, nor the electorate, is ready to address the only issue that matters, which is the deficit. The Republicans would be more likely to restrain spending. I'd like to see a scorched earth approach taken to the entire budget, especially Defence and the Public Service. I'd also be in favor of expiry of the Bush tax cuts, a 5% national VAT, $1/gal increase in federal fuel tax and capping mortgage interest deductibility to say $250K.

I personally can't stand Obama, but try not to let that cloud my judgement. I automatically distrust people who rely on their own charm to push an agenda.
That's why Gary Johnson is the best.

[artvandelay]

Thank Allah that this charade is almost over, this daily reminder of sorry state of American politics is getting hard to take. You know something is terribly wrong when the President of the United States decides to go on the View rather than address the UN, and when the largest news story coming from the debates is about Big Bird.

Regardless of who is elected tomorrow, nothing substantial will change. Both parties will continue to be dominated by special interest lobbies (military/industrial, pharma, pro-Isreal, big labor etc...), and feature very few (if any) politicians who actually have the best interests of America at heart. American society is divided between right and left with both sides spewing vitriol at each other like never before, yet the parties they support are not that different in actuality. There are three major issues that the next president will need to deal with:

1. The largest of which being the debt and spending addiction that the US government has developed. The debt ceiling will again be reached in 2013 and it would be nice if politicians could avoid the nonsense that occurred last summer. Spending will need to be cut across the board, and this will require a bipartisan effort.
2. The second issue tying into this is tax reform. The US tax code is so convoluted that you have some of the world's largest corporations paying almost zero tax, with small and midsize businesses picking up the tab. The tax structure desperately needs to be flattened; the current arrangement discourages innovation, entrepreneurship and competition.
3. The third major problem is immigration. Right now two thirds of immigrants to the States are family class - these people tend to be older, poor, uneducated and a general burden on the system. Only 13% of US immigrants are economic class! (in Canada we are at 67% economic, 22% family) Every year, hundreds of thousands of highly educated would-be Americans are passed over in favour of family class migrants. This is something that needs to be reversed immediately, or a demographic nightmare will result.

Unfortunately I have zero confidence in the Democrats or Republicans to tackle these issues with any degree of competence, but I hope to be pleasantly surprised. Personally, I would vote for Gary Johnson - not that it would matter much.

[MichaelS]

I heard Gary Johnson interviewed on CBC last week, and was quite impressed. I have never heard of him prior to that interview, and outside of this thread haven't heard anyone else mention him either. I am surprised he isn't getting more coverage, but I guess that is just one more sign of how broken the system is down south.

[Doug]

You'd like to see US Defence spending cut yet you favour the Republican candidate? :shrug:

Neither party will willingly cut Defence. At least the Republicans might possibly cut something else.

Maybe a tie would be the best outcome and the resulting gridlock would force budgetary action through the Fiscal Cliff. More and more, the Fiscal Cliff is seeming like the only path forward. It allows necessary action to be taken with no one assuming the blame.

[Doug]

They're an extremely long way from that; their current 30-year rate is 2.91% for treasury bonds with 10 year being significantly lower than that. Even Japan pays under 2% on their 30-year despite having a much higher debt load than the USA relative to GDP.

I think the USA could borrow 40 trillion at their current GDP level and still find buyers for 30-year bonds at rates below 7% (widely considered the marker for being in trouble). It wouldn't be very good for them in the long-term but it could be done in the short-term; particularlay in the name of war.

Bond markets will fund US debt issues until they won't. That is the problem. Investor sentiment can change overnight and then watch out. Why do you think Canadian governments took drastic budgetary action in the mid 90's?

[Waterlooson]

Neither party will willingly cut Defence. At least the Republicans might possibly cut something else.

Maybe a tie would be the best outcome and the resulting gridlock would force budgetary action through the Fiscal Cliff. More and more, the Fiscal Cliff is seeming like the only path forward. It allows necessary action to be taken with no one assuming the blame.

It's called the "fiscal cliff" for a reason... it's because if they wait for it to occur, the economy will go over the cliff.

[Waterlooson]

Bond markets will fund US debt issues until they won't. That is the problem. Investor sentiment can change overnight and then watch out. Why do you think Canadian governments took drastic budgetary action in the mid 90's?

But the USD won't stop being the world's reserve currency over night and that's why the US has been able to be far more fiscally irresponsible than Canada ever was... despite all these US economic and fiscal problems, US bond prices go up on "risk off" days.

[Doug]

It's called the "fiscal cliff" for a reason... it's because if they wait for it to occur, the economy will go over the cliff.

Only in the short term. The deficit has to be adressed at some point and delay only worsens the problem. The sad thing is that the Fiscal Cliff would only solve about 70% of the problem and do so mostly through incfreased revenue. More short term spending cuts are needed.

[Doug]

But the USD won't stop being the world's reserve currency over night and that's why the US has been able to be far more fiscally irresponsible than Canada ever was... despite all these US economic and fiscal problems, US bond prices go up on "risk off" days.

US bonds may be more attractive than the only other highly liquid alternatives of Japanese or European bonds, but the whole asset class could fall out of favour. The two trends driving demand for government bonds are excess savings in emerging economies, namely China, and aging demographics in the industrialized world. At some point, the emerging middle classes in developing economies will bias more towards consumption and the developed world will peak out in terms of average age. In the interim, investors may wake up to the fact that the returns on government bonds are sub-inflation and increasingly turn to corporate bonds or equities. In event of a sovereign default (ex. Greece, Ireland, Portugal), suddenly government bonds would be less risk-free and that shift could happen sooner. The whole world has become interest rate complacent, assuming current low rates won't revert towards the mean. For example, the post-war mean on the US 10 year is around 6-7% rather than the current 1.8%. One could argue that more efficient credit markets imply that the 6-7% will trend downwards but I'd bet the farm that the average over the next 10-20 years will be closer to 6-7% rather than to 1.8%. As a data point, the first bond I ever bought was a 1993 series 20 year Government of Canada with a coupon of 13.5%. Heavily indebted governments such as the US may face austerity just to meet increasing debt servicing costs.

As an aside, one of the most conter-intuitive rationales for maintaining the Defence budget is to prepare for China's emergence as a Super Power. If that budget is borrowed from the Chinese government, it only surrenders US sovereignty. Maybe President Mitt Romney could sell some collateralized
debt obligations to the Chinese government in place of bonds.

[yaletown_fella]

This is too easy.

I would vote for "Other" Gary Johnson.

[vid]

Well , you'd b...no wage gap .

In this first part of your post, you explain that the wage gap is only a technicality because men are doing more dangerous, high paying work while women are less willing to undertake dangerous jobs and more likely to balance work and family.

There is a difference between men's and women's average salaries because there is a difference between men's and women's career choices. OK, I can accept that, it makes some sense.

But then, you take this "we have to consider the differences" ideology and abandon it for the "but both parties are equal!!" ideology against which you have just argued:

Now , if you want to argue about why only women should have a say in the matter then I'll put it to you : Why should women only have a say in the matter of abortion ?
Better yet , let me ask you a question : With the exception of health , what reason is there for allowing women the option of aborting a child while not simultaneously allowing men the same ? She doesn't have money ? Okay ... what makes him rich all of a sudden ? She's not old enough ? Why doesn't that apply to him ? She simply doesn't want a baby ? What if he doesn't want it either ?

So previously you had argued that women don't get to earn the exact same as men because men do harder work.

Well, women carry the baby to term.

[SignalHillHiker]

Not that it really matters how they actually vote anymore...

http://harpers.org/archive/2012/11/how-to-rig-an-election/?single=1

[DizzyEdge]

It would be interesting if the middle class continues to shrink in the US, but a growing lower class has wages so depressed that companies bring manufacturing back to the USA, greatly reducing unemployment (even though it would mostly be working poor).

[The Gibbroni]

I'd vote Obama and all of my American friends are voting for him as well. Even a couple of moderate Republicans are voting Dem. as they can't stand Romney.

[Acajack]

Neither party will willingly cut Defence. .
.

Check again. Obama has in fact cut defence spending.

[jd3189]

Seems to be a lot of rejection of the conservative politics that divide the US from its northern neighbor and Europe. Is socialism and government control of healthcare, etc the only way to run any country or is just what you people prefer since you have lived under that system for so long. I agree that American politics have been largely a joke for the past decades now, but why must the alternative be to the complete opposite of the current Republican party without finding common ground? If they are anti-gay and are against same-sex marriage, why not first try to explain to them that people, no matter what, should be treated equally and that some religious beliefs are personal beliefs and not everyone shares them? Or, in the case of the economy, the rich, middle class, and the lower class( but especially the middle class) must all have jobs that will carry the country through. Let's face it, America will never embrace the ideals that are already set in place in Canada. You guys may mock us and say we are the laughingstocks of the world, but in essence, you fail to fully understand the current state of affairs in this country. If you don't care, then that is you choice, but if you are afraid that what happens here also affects Canadian politics, then instead of losing faith, try to get people you know in the States to make a difference. The Election isn't extremely corrupted. What needs to be done is to educate people. Most Americans don't even know how their local government works, let alone the federal level. I'm one of the few that does know because I recently took a course on US history,government, and economics. But again, understand the complexity of what you are dealing with before you call us all a bunch of idiots.

[artvandelay]

Check again. Obama has in fact cut defence spending.

This is incorrect, defense spending has increased (http://www.usgovernmentspending.com/spending_chart_1997_2017USb_13s1li111lcn_30t_30_Defense_Spending_Chart) in absolute and relative terms since Obama came to office in 2008.

I assume you are referring to the Budget Control Act of 2011 (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Budget_Control_Act_of_2011). It would be wrong to attribute this to Obama as the act was a bipartisan attempt to solve the debt crisis spearheaded by Republican lawmakers. Of course, this attempt failed in identifying the necessary $1.2 trillion in cuts due to the inability of Republicans and Democrats to work together, and will need to be renegotiated next year anyway. The majority of defense spending cuts embedded within the act do not come into effect until January, and both the Democrats and Republicans have said that they will not go through with them.

[vid]

Is socialism and government control of healthcare, etc the only way to run any country or is just what you people prefer since you have lived under that system for so long.

It's a clearly better system. The lack of people going bankrupt because they're sick or injured, the lack of a burden on employers to provide health benefits for their employees, and the lack of stress over how to access healthcare, usually outweigh the negative of having to wait a bit longer for healthcare. Based on what we have seen the Americans experience with their healthcare system, we have almost unanimously come to the conclusion that some form of universal healthcare is better than what the US has.

I agree that American politics have been largely a joke for the past decades now, but why must the alternative be to the complete opposite of the current Republican party without finding common ground?

It is the Republican Party that is avoiding common ground, and routinely adopting the opposite of whatever the Democratic party is doing.

Right wing parties seem to do this a lot. We saw this in Ontario regarding our sales tax: The right wing Progressive Conservative party wanted to merge the provincial and federal taxes into one, and the left wing Liberals opposed that. But when the federal Conservatives offered a substantial cash bonus to the province for merging the taxes, the Liberals accepted that, at which point the Progressive Conservatives automatically changed their position on the tax to one that opposed it, even though they first proposed the idea.

It's more of a knee-jerk reaction to change than an actual ideology.

If they are anti-gay and are against same-sex marriage, why not first try to explain to them that people, no matter what, should be treated equally and that some religious beliefs are personal beliefs and not everyone shares them?

We've tried that. It doesn't work.

Or, in the case of the economy, the rich, middle class, and the lower class( but especially the middle class) must all have jobs that will carry the country through.

Having jobs is what makes the middle class the middle class. So yeah, they "must" have jobs...

Let's face it, America will never embrace the ideals that are already set in place in Canada. You guys may mock us and say we are the laughingstocks of the world, but in essence, you fail to fully understand the current state of affairs in this country. If you don't care, then that is you choice, but if you are afraid that what happens here also affects Canadian politics, then instead of losing faith, try to get people you know in the States to make a difference.

That's what we're doing... And America is embracing the ideals set in place in Canada. You're actually further ahead than we are with regards to decriminalizing pot. There are multiple places that offer on-demand abortion in small cities in the US, but for people in my city, the 40th largest in Canada, there is only one and appointments take about two weeks. A majority support same sex marriage, both people running for president support a weird kind of universal health care scheme.

Canada and the US are extremely similar, the US just has a very different (and very bizarre) method of enacting its policies.

Ultimately we're 34 million people against 310 million people. A tiny voice. Most of the Americans that disagree with us, completely disregard anything we have to say.

The Election isn't extremely corrupted. What needs to be done is to educate people.

If people aren't properly educated going into the election, then the election is corrupted.

SuperPACs are corrupted. Electing the judicial branch is an opportunity for corruption and undermining what should be a non-political entity. The two party system where small extremist factions control a major party is corrupt. The fact that corporations and lobbyists can effectively pay for and pass legislation in their favour is corrupt.

The fact that the US doesn't properly fund its schools so that its people can be educated is a form of corruption.

The system was rigged against common people from the start. That is why you have an electoral college choose the president on the advice of 50 separate and non-binding popular votes.

Most Americans don't even know how their local government works, let alone the federal level. I'm one of the few that does know because I recently took a course on US history,government, and economics. But again, understand the complexity of what you are dealing with before you call us all a bunch of idiots.

You don't seem to understand that we get all of the US's media here. We know how your system works. We know it better than our own, because just like the US, our most watched cable news network is CNN. The exact same CNN that is based in Atlanta and tailored for a specifically American audience. When I was a kid I thought I actually lived in the United States because I was so bombarded by American news and culture.

We understand what you're dealing with just as well as you do because we're pushed into being almost exactly like you.

[Acajack]

This is incorrect, defense spending has increased (http://www.usgovernmentspending.com/spending_chart_1997_2017USb_13s1li111lcn_30t_30_Defense_Spending_Chart) in absolute and relative terms since Obama came to office in 2008.

I assume you are referring to the Budget Control Act of 2011 (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Budget_Control_Act_of_2011). It would be wrong to attribute this to Obama as the act was a bipartisan attempt to solve the debt crisis spearheaded by Republican lawmakers. Of course, this attempt failed in identifying the necessary $1.2 trillion in cuts due to the inability of Republicans and Democrats to work together, and will need to be renegotiated next year anyway. The majority of defense spending cuts embedded within the act do not come into effect until January, and both the Democrats and Republicans have said that they will not go through with them.

Sorry. Read some info too quickly.