http://politicalcompass.org/uselection2012

This is a US election that defies logic and brings the nation closer towards a one-party state, masquerading as a two-party state.

The Democratic incumbent has surrounded himself with conservative advisors and key figures — many from previous administrations, and an unprecedented number from the Trilateral Commission. He also appointed a former Monsanto executive as Senior Advisor to the FDA. He has extended Bush tax cuts for the wealthy, presided over a spiralling rich-poor gap and sacrificed further American jobs with recent free trade deals.

Trade union rights have also eroded under his watch. He has expanded Bush defence spending, droned civilians, failed to close Guantanamo, supported the NDAA which EFFECTIVELY LEGALIZES MARTIAL LAW, allowed drilling and adopted a soft-touch position towards the banks that is to the right of European Conservative leaders.

We list these because many of Obama’s detractors absurdly portray him as either a radical liberal or a socialist, while his apologists, equally absurdly, continue to view him as a well-intentioned progressive, tragically thwarted by overwhelming pressures. 2008's yes-we-can chanters, dazzled by pigment rather than policy detail, forgot to ask can what?

Between 1998 and the last election, Obama amassed $37.6million from the financial services industry, according to the Center for Responsive Politics. While 2008 presidential candidate Obama appeared to champion universal health care, his first choice for Secretary of Health was a man who had spent years lobbying on behalf of the pharmaceutical industry against that very concept. Hey! You don't promise a successful pub, and then appoint the Salvation Army to run it.

This time around, the honey-tongued President makes populist references to economic justice, while simultaneously appointing as his new Chief of Staff a former Citigroup executive concerned with hedge funds that bet on the housing market to collapse. Obama poses something of a challenge to The Political Compass, because he's a man of so few fixed principles.

There's a lot more to that article but I'll end it there just to say that I'd vote for Ron Paul before I'd vote for either of the front runners.

If I were living in America right now, I'd promptly vote for no one and move to another country.

/sells everything, buys couple tour fishing boats and moves to Cabo San Lucas.

It's a bad time to have to choose Congressmen,Senators, ad a President.

Most of them are about as useless as tits on a boar hog and really aren't as interested in fixing what's wrong in America as they are buying votes so they can remain in Office.

And the Game goes on..... ugh

"If you choose not to decide, you still have made a choice" - Rush

+10

A US debt of $15,750,000,000,000.00 scares me. And it doesn't scare any of the Democrats or Republicans, who are increasing the rate of our demise. I've never voted for a Republican or Democrat. I'm not gullible enough to do that.

Actually? There is something being done about it and one of their slogans is "We're sorry 1%ers, we fell asleep at our posts but you have awakened us"

Yours Truly, the 99%

Complaining isn't going to do anything about it. Getting people elected is doing something about it.

Those occupoopsters are a joke, LOL!

Why? at least they are trying something.. everyone else is just sitting on their ass watching their rights and freedoms stripped away, waiting to drowned in debt.. not exactly a utopian society lol

They cost my home city over $150k in damages, how's that a help to a "cause"???

Nope. Not at all something I'd want to perpetuate or live in.

*goes to read 1984 again*

Unfortunately this is what happens with ppl mass together :S fluffs that turn protests into riots are just hurting their cause and driving people away. most occupy protests/protesters aren't like that thou, which is good, but the bad ones just give them all a bad name

I agree, but I'm sure for very different reasons than KoH. The Occupy movement started off being about economic disparity, but all the fringe groups have tagged along and it's become a clusterfluff of voices with no central message anymore.

This is what liberals/progressives are so bad at. They want to change the world in one fell swoop, so instead of prioritizing and fighting for gradual progress, they want instantaneous change on every issue. While I'm very against the Tea Party movement, they have a concise message that they're all on board with. Everyone knows they're pushing for smaller government and fewer taxes.

Those "incidents" didn't happen with the tea party protests, and they were significantly larger rallies!

Yes, dead on, Twain, no leadership = chaos :/

On this side you can vote for a giant douche. While over here is a0 turd sandwich. What will it be?

I'll vote for the pIMP of the chIMPs, go run Subby, you got my vote! :p

As SublimeNightmare said, it's a matter of choosing between two evils: Someone who was elected on the promise of fixing everything, and has delivered little of what his campaign speeches talked of.

Or, someone who's spoken very little if not at all of their true intentions for running for President. To voice my own opinion, I believe Romney would just become nothing more than a mouthpiece for the Church of Judas Iscariot of Latter Day Satanists... *ahem* I mean the Mormons.

Sure, my opinion about the Mor(m)on church isn't all that positive, but when you've lived in Utah (Mormon central), for nearly seven years to be close to your ailing mother, your opinion of the church and those in it begin to sour.

To get back to the topic though, with it being an election year, there are the dissatisfied groups from both sides of the aisle that are going to try and slander the hell out of the other side throwing everything they have until something sticks. It's not like the 1980's where all you had to do was accuse the other candidate of being too soft in the "War on Communism."

what an amazing piece of trash that article is

I'm somewhere extremely right of the Tea Party...

One thing is for sure, you have to speak loudly even if it doesnt get results..

and as was once said by the cold war russians, america can only fall from within, not by invasion because every civilian is armed to the teeth...

So I say keep pushing for changes (myself I wish the Tea party was more Right Wing) and keep your ammo supplies and weapons close at hand...

One thing is for sure, America could do without politicians, Lawyers and Insurance Companies..and LIBERALS !!!

(I fully expect to be bashed for being extremely right wing)

President choice to me = NONE that are running, so it really goes to the least of two evils..While fighting for a real leader to step up...

I could care less. Good for you. No need to bash. Make sure you oil those guns. Believe what you want. I wish you good luck in your pursuit of whatever end you are looking to find.

Edit: I should add that the social, political, religious, economic, and military elite probably could care less about what you or I think. They are busy with pursuing their own end and only give a damn if you or I happen to be a means to that end.

I'm an Indy. Only because the Libertarians can't seem to choose anything but crackpots to represent them.

If you look at their platform, there's something for both Liberals and Conservatives to dislike.

The Liberals are gonna hate the fact that Libertarians want small Government and minimal Federal Spending.

The Conservatives are gonna hate that Libertarians flat out don't care if you're gay or want an abortion or wish to do drugs.

What our society in general is missing is Personal Responsibility. If Senator Smith can get me more Food Stamps, or make my company pay me $15 an hour for Minimum Wage, Hell YEAH I'd vote for him because I have to be responsible for less on my own. I can throw the burden of the fact I can't keep it in my pants (or keep my legs together if I'm a female) on Uncle Sam.

The problem is that it means I'm making my more responsible neighbors pay my way through life.

Somewhere along the line, it seems that we have been retrained to not care about that so much. It's like feeding the bears. If you provide the bear with a steady supply of easy food for long enough, he'll drastically reduce the effort of hunting, killing, and foraging for his food. It's a natural reaction. The stray cat keeps coming back to the place where plates of free food are put out for him.

We're no different. We breed like bunnies, we allow even more bunny breeders to come to our doorstep (from Mexico) and eat our food and breed some more and do nothing to stop it.

Personal Responsibility. Two words that no longer exist in the same sentence much anymore.

My belief is that we are trying to fit a square peg into a round hole. We cannot govern this country with the current system.

Changing the system? Near impossible. I have no answer to that paradigm.

EDIT: The world is not a true/false question. Problems do not have A, or B solutions. Our government, media, party A or party B would like constituents to think that there are only ever two answers to questions/problems. But this world, our society and it's challenges are more complicated then that.

I dont disagree with either of you..

and for sure there is not -ONE answer- to fill all the voids.

Exactly right.

Also, I feel a big problem is that people in the "expert" roles are NOT our friends. They have an agenda and only look to steer people into believing something that helps their cause.

In any issue there are many answers. To each answer would have many consequences. It is very difficult to predict these and certainly some could be good or bad.

These 'experts' be it in the political, financial, military or religious roles want people to believe their agenda is the above all and be all 'correct' way to see the world. Well that is bullfluff.

Politicians should be able to operate from a, 'were going to try this because collectively we have agreed this should not only work, but work better then the other ideas'. We may get this wrong, if we do, we will promptly about face and try the next best option.

Instead, we split the aisle, make it all about the party instead of making decisions that affect the people they represent. We 'fluff, fluff, and more fluff' about it and instead, most of the crap they spew hurts the people they represent.

Enter more 'experts' who add their fluff about it being the only option and either good or bad.

Rinse and repeat. Turd sandwich or giant douche.

the probelm is the product the system has created, should they strip the high pay/insane benefits/corporate election ties i feel the system would somewhat correct itself.

there is no reason those people who ran for public office should be getting paid what they get paid. nor should any business be allowed to contribute to campaigns. with the flat 2500 limit on personal donations. it would force the people to actually ya know, campaign, instead of run hudreds of tv/radio ads that they would no longer be able to afford. and it would fix some of our issues with govt being in bed with big business. there wouldnt be a reason to give kick backs. our system is the best system in the world. it could be tweeked a little, but its far from a bad system *cough* china and n.korea *cough*

mdevol. I agree. But my point would be that separating big business and private interest from government is like separating Mormons from Utah. Good luck with that. Are corp's people? No. But the law and precedent has been set and there is almost infinite $$ to make sure it stays that way.

while i agree, the occupy/tea party movemnets both have been spark in the people getting involved in politics again. somethin this country has been lacking for along time. and congressmen and women and being held a little more accountable by the voters as of late.

But, separating the Mormons from Utah would be a good thing, we have a few islands in the Pacific they can have! :P

This is why you will get bashed.
yes, a nation can survive with no lawyers...that's well thought out.
also, you would be considered a pathetic bleeding heart liberal 60 years ago...something to think about



agree 100%. modern politics means No money = no power

bonus pts

The day a occupy or tea party movement has the ability to reach the masses through means other than the internet this might mean something. But main stream America is owned by, bought and paid for, and works for, big $. TV news, internet news, print news are mostly owned by major corps and will spin the news towards their own agenda. They have $$ money to hire experts to say for example, that a certain movement is working, but marginalize it in the same fell swoop.

The smartest people in the room do not work in the government, they work for big $$, and they do a damn fine job of pushing status quo, conventional wisdom, etc. Why? Because that's good for business.

fluff all yall haterz

Quite soon I'll be running for office as a Libertarian. Which probably won't change your opinion that Libertarians only choose crackpots to represent them.

Depending on how this election turns out, I might be looking into getting dual citizenship. :P

NightShade you should move to any other country and denounce your US citizenship. SOON!!!!

There are more than 2 ways to do anything and that is not a problem as much as an opportunity to a third party candidate t step in the middle and try to reach out to the public.

Rhetoric from both parties will attack the middle candidate, but as Dolly Pardon says "No press is bad press". If there was an option to vote for in the middle of both parties then there would be a chance to make a popular difference. What we have going on right now is an attempt at directed politics. No one likes that.

That's because the two party system is flawed, when you're forced to choose between the lesser of two evils, wishing these was a third option doesn't help. If there were a legitimate third party that had enough popular support, you would see a small minority of people voting for that party than for the Republican or Democratic parties.

The only problem, is we get these old bastards, no offense to Ron Paul or Ross Perot, who would have been *great* candidates for the presidency and probably helluva lot better than some previous holders of the office, had they only stepped forward when they were what this country was looking for during previous elections.

Take the money out of elections, get rid of the "electoral college" and allow for the popular vote to make the choice. Then bring in candidates based on what they will do when elected and NOT on how much mud they can sling at the other candidate / candidates.

It kind of makes me think that the system might work better if we put more candidates out for the general election and then did a run-off. Of course, the parties would still put out one candidate, so unless other parties became more powerful, it wouldnt much matter.

But it would also prevent people like Perot or Nader from basically stealing votes from another candidate in the final election as well.

More parties, candidates, choices and compromise would likely be a better thing for the US. But it is very hard to predict what changing the system would actually do.

It needs to be changed, but how it is changed is tricky. $$ will always try to weasel it's way into the system.

Take $$ completely out and it would likely surface in 'backroom' deals.

I might steal a bagel and not put a $1 in the jar from work. So, essentially, my limit is $1 to do something dishonest. Others in government may have a higher sealing but everyone has a price.

You take the money out of politics by taking away the ability for politicians to give ridiculous amounts of money to people who do not deserve it. End corporate welfare, corporate bailouts, and all this ridiculous meddling in free markets from the government, and you'll find corporations are far less interested in contributing to political campaigns.

Most importantly, we need to imprison every CEO and every politician who gave government bailout money to a company, and then the company gave some of that money back to politicians. That's called a kick back. It's against the law. Send those fluffing thieves to jail where they belong.

Agreed. But good luck getting that through the legal system.