I would rate him neutral.

Congress has not help the situation. They have not pass any major legislature in a while. Congressmen are worried about being reelected not their constituents. There should be term limits to congress, but I understand it is unrealistic. SCOTUS ruling on Citizens United is scary. How can a company be a person, when they do not died?

Also, once government grows, it is very difficult to shrink it. The government grew over 40% under President Bush. That growth is hard to cut. It is easier to expand than to cut. Many governmental entities will fight to keep their parts funded. Congress also needs to play their role in cutting government size, and place checks on the President's growing power. President Bush used a legal team to expand his powers during his Presidency.

The President just cannot go to a department and closed down shop. That requires congress approval. I have seen area were generals want to cut, but they receive push back from congress, and force to continue.

The funding for elections needs to be revamped, and this scares me, because external influences on the elections. Citizens United now allows foreign contributions to the election cycles.

Benghazi is just another political ploy to remove attention from real issues. Four Americans died that day, and it was tragic. The first thing most political officials cut is security. I've seen with first hand. Request for security improvements are denied all the time, and most public officials are reactionary to security and not proactive. Of course, unless it involves their security. Forces were ready to move in, but military command retreated from moving in. Many factors come into play for that decision, and the military commander's first responsibility to his/her unit is to ensure their safety. He/she does not want to send their unit in to be wiped out by bad intel or conditions. Conventional forces were thought of, but their response time is not on par with other forces in the military.

Also, spying on US Citizens is nothing new, but I abhor it. France, Spain, Germany, Australia, Japan, and UK spy on their citizens and abroad (other countries) more frequently and without oversight.

(July 30, 2013 at 2:13 am)Creed of Heresy Wrote: See, I keep hearing "he's better than the alternatives."

Seriously, is it so much to ask for this country to elect a genuinely good leader?

Yes.

Unfortunately, yes.

The game is rigged against 3rd parties. You only get two choices. Actually three if you want to count not voting/voting 3rd party. The Democrats have figured this out and, in the last dozen years or so, have a policy of throwing liberals under the bus as soon as they're in office. The Republicans continue running right off the deep end, so they know liberals and moderates have nowhere else to go.

I'm just an American voter. I can only choose between the two choices the powers that be in my country give me. Our democracy is virtually dead.

But you know what really pisses me off? When the O-bots make their rounds and wag their fingers at liberals and lecture us like little children how 2010 was our fault for allowing ourselves to get demoralized. Seriously, I hear snide remarks like "I hope you learned your lesson." Yeah, it's our fault. It's not their fault for being such piss-poor leaders. It's not their fault for rolling over to the Republicans or folding up like a cheap suit. It's not their fault that they're a bunch of spineless wimps who can't take a stand or giving away the store before the GOP even gets to the negotiating table. It's our fault for not loving them enough and not supporting them enough.

In 2008, I held my nose and voted for Obama. That's all I can do.

At the moment I'm neutral. There were hopes I had for Obama, mostly in terms of personal liberties (taking down the Patriotic Act, closing Gitmo, etc.). Some I understand where his hands are tied and others, not so much. He's definately not the progressive liberal some have labled him as, perhaps I am more progressive than him, who knows? I am pleased with his "evolution" on LGBT equality. Basically, I think he *should* be doing more, but his managment style seems to be delegation.

(July 30, 2013 at 2:13 am)Creed of Heresy Wrote: See, I keep hearing "he's better than the alternatives."

Seriously, is it so much to ask for this country to elect a genuinely good leader? Like what happened to the days of Kennedy, and Roosevelt and Clinton for that matter?? That's hardly a good enough way of judging a President, and that kind of attitude is why we keep getting stuck with these lame ducks to begin with.

They do not survive - or even enter - the contest anymore. Anyone who seeks high office is put through a giant wringer.

I find Obama very likeable as a person, and at times more genuine than the average president. I did vote for him twice, but I admit, the first time was harder to do so. The race issue was at the forefront, and I didn't have a good feel for how he was going to tackle that. But I think he's done a good job trying to be everybody's president in that respect.

He's been tolerant of gay rights, it seems. More so than is typical. That's hugely important to me. But I give SCOTUS more credit with that issue, especially being a Californian. Glad to see Prop 8 duly damaged.

Obamacare confuses the hell out of me, and is being laid out such that things change every year for a certain number of years until it's all out there (right?). But then, in general, I'm a fan of social healthcare. Government, in general, should be "infrastructure first".

I'm already very curious to see who will run in 2016. I guess this Bob Filner mayoral nonsense here in San Diego is putting me into the mood.

Gotta love Leno!



About the only option that would give a third party candidate some kind of a chance at winning an election is to join one of two major parties. But then the big hurdle would be overcoming the elites in those parties.

I am actualy really pissed about a foreign goverment spying on the citizens of a country that is it`s ally.

But I dont think it would have been any different under a republican administration.

The problem does not lie with the political institution but in the institutions of the state in my opinion.

And what would solve that problem is to heave a gigantic axe into the the security apperatus and thereby cut it`s spending.

Aswell as interducing some much needed transparecy into those institutions.

(July 30, 2013 at 12:14 pm)A Theist Wrote: About the only option that would give a third party candidate some kind of a chance at winning an election is to join one of two major parties. But then the big hurdle would be overcoming the elites in those parties.

On that point you and I are in complete agreement!

*Pause for shock from everyone*

I suspect you voted for Romney but I also suspect you held your nose the same way I did voting for Obama.

And I also agree this "recovery" has only been for the elites in this country. The Stock Market is through the roof. Corporate profitability is at an all time high. The top 1% are doing very well. Everyday Americans are still suffering.

I need to start a business selling nose plugs for voters.

(July 30, 2013 at 12:18 pm)The Germans are coming Wrote: The problem does not lie with the political institution but in the institutions of the state in my opinion.

And what would solve that problem is to heave a gigantic axe into the the security apperatus and thereby cut it`s spending.

The problem is that the private companies behind the technology that is used for our "security" are too powerful and influential to let any cut to their spending happen, just as the defense contractors are too powerful to let any cut to the defense budget happen.

It's these corporate interests that profit from fear and conflict that are destroying our country, and even if we were somehow able to elect a leader that campaigned against these interests(Citizens United essentially made that impossible), the influence of these corporations would be too great for them to actually succeed.

Out politicians are merely puppets for the true power in this country, the lobbyists.

Yeah - one thing about Leno is that he is bi-partisan.