On November the 4th, the United States of America will be electing a new President. They will be deciding who controls the House of Representatives and who controls the Senate. All of these are important decisions, but the former is even more important as it is not just important for the American people, but for the world.

For 8 years, America has been ruled by George W. Bush. And for 8 years, the world has grown steadily more out of love with the USA. From the heady days of Clinton, still the most popular President amongst non-Americans, to the single least popular President (At home or abroad) in history, it’s quite a come down.

Non-Americans never liked Bush. Europeans dislike him because he’s too right wing for instance. The man didn’t even win the election fair and square, it’s very likely Al Gore (Who was certainly the more qualified candidate) had enough votes to win. But life’s not simple, so he went home a loser (Before bouncing back as an environmental icon unlike any other in history).

He swept through the 2004 election on a Magic Carpet of American prejudice (Colourfully called “values”) and War on Terror-themed propaganda, shamelessly attacking his (Admittedly) weak opponent John Kerry. Kerry may have been a weak Democrat, but he would have been twice the President Bush has been and the cheek a draft-dodger like Bush has questioning Mr. Kerry’s political record is simply indescribable.

2 years ago, the Democrats got back in the game. They swept to power in the House and the Senate on a tidal wave of anti-Bush backlash. And who can blame the Americans for regretting their choice of leader? Bush has spent 4 years killing the economy, eroding civil liberties and ignoring national crises. He’s embarrassed the entire country, reducing what should be the greatest democracy in the world to an international punch-line.

Well, on November 4th, the American people have a final decision to make. They have a choice between two things. One the one hand, they can finish what they started 2 years ago, fix their problems at home and restore their standing on the world stage. On the other hand, they can finish President Bush’s hack-job.

The first choice, the only choice, is Barack Obama. Mr. Obama represents all that America pertains to stand for. He is inclusionary, smart & likable, he lived the “American Dream”. His popularity on the world stage rivals Clinton, rivals Kennedy. He gets it. Mr. Obama has shown he knows what’s ailing the US at home, and he’s shown he knows what must be done to restore America’s popularity in the world.

The bottom of the Democratic ticket too is a strong, good choice. Joe Biden is truly in tune with the “working man” of America. He’s a nice guy and he knows his stuff. More importantly, he is fit to lead should the unthinkable happen. Joe Biden is one of the smartest VP picks in a long time.

The second choice? Not a choice at all. A dangerous and damaging option, is Republican ticket McCain/Palin. John McCain has betrayed everything he has ever stood for. He used to be a passably acceptable moderate Republican, but has sold his soul to become...Another Bush.

The Republican party may wish to continue on the dark path set up by Reagan all those years ago, but Reagan was of his time. Things have changed, and we do not need another Bush. McCain has demonstrated he will continue the failed social and economic policies of George Bush. he has demonstrated he will use the same foreign policy as George W. Bush. he has pent 2 years distancing himself from George W. Bush. But throughout that time, he has shown he is now a veritable Bush clone.

And the kicker? He agreed with Bush more than 90% of the time, including on all the issues that really matter.

Perhaps worse, is Sarah Palin. Palin is a fool. She is, in fact, worse than that. She has every capacity to be incredibly intelligent. She simply chooses not to be. She represents Bushism at its worst. She is a divisive, arrogant liar and unfit to lead a dance recital.

Why is a Governor of Alaska who has supported the treasonous secessionism rampant in that state being allowed to run for Vice President of the United States? The RNC has decided their slogans are “Country First” and “The Change you deserve”.

Palin is married to a former member of the Alaskan Secessionist Party. Palin warmly welcomed that party to their conference this year. Their slogan is “Alaska First, Alaska Always”. Which is it Sarah? America or Alaska? VP or Secessionist?

Palin and McCain are Bush and Cheney warmed over. Apparently the RNC thinks it’s funny. “The Change America Deserves” is, apparently, no change at all. Once again, the Republicans have anointed themselves America’s only valid opinion and decided to try and convince everyone else it’s their opinion too.

Well I sense the Change we Need. Hope.

Barack Obama represents and embodies the ideals and aspirations of so many people like nobody has in a long time.

E pluribus unum. Out of Many, One.

I love America. I love what it stands for and I love much of what it produces. I love the way its government is structured, even the way its road signs look. It’s not that I dislike the UK, and more that the US represents so many of my beliefs. Like in true freedom. The American Dream. And so much more.

It’s been painful to watch what became of the country under Bush. And I confess, he had me fooled too. At first. But as I watched, the more I realised he was wrong. His is not an America I can get behind.

And then, from nowhere, Blessing. Barack. Obama represents the kind of aspirational leader I feared I would never live to see. He appeals to me in the same way Kennedy does. And his policies, his attitude, his ideals...He represents all that I love about America.

And so whilst it may seem to you like I have no stake in this election, you’re wrong. And in case you hadn’t guessed...

No way. No how. No McCain.

Absolutely agreed.

You live in England.

I addressed that Jayge, you should read the whole thing next time :P

"

Non-Americans never liked Bush. Europeans dislike him because he’s too right wing for instance. The man didn’t even win the election fair and square, it’s very likely Al Gore (Who was certainly the more qualified candidate) had enough votes to win. But life’s not simple, so he went home a loser (Before bouncing back as an environmental icon unlike any other in history).

            - The one with the most votes in the electoral college wins...period, so saying Bush "stole" the presidency is a unfounded idea. Oh, and of course Al Gore is more qualified, after all he did invent the internet.....*facepalm*

He swept through the 2004 election on a Magic Carpet of American prejudice (Colourfully called “values”) and War on Terror-themed propaganda, shamelessly attacking his (Admittedly) weak opponent John Kerry. Kerry may have been a weak Democrat, but he would have been twice the President Bush has been and the cheek a draft-dodger like Bush has questioning Mr. Kerry’s political record is simply indescribable.

            - If Kerry would have been twice the president Bush was, he would have won the election, but the American people chose Bush in a landslide. The last thing Americans needed was an indecisive president (was sums up Kerry in a nutshell) in those dire times.

2 years ago, the Democrats got back in the game. They swept to power in the House and the Senate on a tidal wave of anti-Bush backlash. And who can blame the Americans for regretting their choice of leader? Bush has spent 4 years killing the economy, eroding civil liberties and ignoring national crises. He’s embarrassed the entire country, reducing what should be the greatest democracy in the world to an international punch-line.

            - Bush didn't kill the economy, it was the democrats who took control of congress and let Freddie Mac and Fannie May run loss and causing the crisis in the housing markets that we see now, thus causing the economic crisis. And the democrats did it while ignoring warnings by many republicans including John McCain

Well, on November 4th, the American people have a final decision to make. They have a choice between two things. One the one hand, they can finish what they started 2 years ago, fix their problems at home and restore their standing on the world stage. On the other hand, they can finish President Bush’s hack-job.

            - How is Obama going to restore America's standing in the world? By inching ever closer to Socialism and Marxism? By surrendering in Iraq, and letting it become a terrorist hotbed? Or by associating himself with America-hating radicals such as William Ayers or Jeremiah Wright?

The first choice, the only choice, is Barack Obama. Mr. Obama represents all that America pertains to stand for. He is inclusionary, smart & likable, he lived the “American Dream”. His popularity on the world stage rivals Clinton, rivals Kennedy. He gets it. Mr. Obama has shown he knows what’s ailing the US at home, and he’s shown he knows what must be done to restore America’s popularity in the world.

            - An American election is not a popularity contest, or at least it shouldn't be; and we are not electing some  "Great Debater," we are electing the next president of the Unites States, and that office should be filled with the most experienced and knowlegble, which is CERTAINLY not Mr. Obama

The bottom of the Democratic ticket too is a strong, good choice. Joe Biden is truly in tune with the “working man” of America. He’s a nice guy and he knows his stuff. More importantly, he is fit to lead should the unthinkable happen. Joe Biden is one of the smartest VP picks in a long time.

           - Joe Biden is also someone who has diagreed and called out Obama on all the important issues when running against him in the primaries, and is someone who has said that he would rather reun with John McCain than with Hilary or Obama.

The second choice? Not a choice at all. A dangerous and damaging option, is Republican ticket McCain/Palin. John McCain has betrayed everything he has ever stood for. He used to be a passably acceptable moderate Republican, but has sold his soul to become...Another Bush.

           - How is Sarah Palin dangerous or damaging? by being an expert on energy issues and special needs families or by standing up to her own party (something Obama has not done ONCE in his political career) and running against an incumbent REPUBLICAN in Alaska?

The Republican party may wish to continue on the dark path set up by Reagan all those years ago, but Reagan was of his time. Things have changed, and we do not need another Bush. McCain has demonstrated he will continue the failed social and economic policies of George Bush. he has demonstrated he will use the same foreign policy as George W. Bush. he has pent 2 years distancing himself from George W. Bush. But throughout that time, he has shown he is now a veritable Bush clone.

           - Democrats are all the same, blaming Bush for everything wrong in America. Failed forign policy, such as the troop surge which is SUCCEDING in Iraq? Failed economic policy, which had nothing to do with the subprime mortgage companies or the DEMOCRATS that protected them?

Palin and McCain are Bush and Cheney warmed over. Apparently the RNC thinks it’s funny. “The Change America Deserves” is, apparently, no change at all. Once again, the Republicans have anointed themselves America’s only valid opinion and decided to try and convince everyone else it’s their opinion too.

Well I sense the Change we Need. Hope.

            - The republicans are the only SANE option, as the "Change we Need" is change towards higher taxes in a troubled economic times, a plunge in Marxism and Communism, and toward defeat in Iraq, effectively wasting all the lives of the soldiers who split their blood for America and allowing terrorists to overwhelm Iraq and turn it into a sanctuary.

Barack Obama represents and embodies the ideals and aspirations of so many people like nobody has in a long time.

            - Not since Lenin and Stalin,Mao Zedong, and Hilter.

E pluribus unum. Out of Many, One.

            -"From each according to ability, to each according to need" - Karl Marx, co-writer of "The Communist Manifesto" and one of the founders of Communism

             "Spread the Wealth around" - Barak Obama, Democratic nominee for President

I love America. I love what it stands for and I love much of what it produces. I love the way its government is structured, even the way its road signs look. It’s not that I dislike the UK, and more that the US represents so many of my beliefs. Like in true freedom. The American Dream. And so much more.

            - The American Dream is something Obama will abolish under his socialist tax-plans and his universal health care plan, so saying you love it and Obama is an oxymoron

And then, from nowhere, Blessing. Barack. Obama represents the kind of aspirational leader I feared I would never live to see. He appeals to me in the same way Kennedy does. And his policies, his attitude, his ideals...He represents all that I love about America.

And so whilst it may seem to you like I have no stake in this election, you’re wrong. And in case you hadn’t guessed...

             - Speech and the ability to inspire is no substitute for poor economic policy, poor foreign policy, associations to MANY dangerous Radicals who HATE AMERICA and lack of experience. Oh, and Mr. Obama's close friend Bill Ayers dedicated a book to Sirhan Sirhan, Robert Kennedy's assasin.

I support Barack Obama for President."

             - Jensonb: pro-communism, pro-American failure in Iraq, pro-abortion, pro-taxes, PRO-OBAMA 

"You live in England."

"I addressed that Jayge, you should read the whole thing next time :P"

Couple real quick things.  No matter who was running on the Republican ticket this year, they would be called "another George Bush."  To argue otherwise would be crazy.  And McCain "voted with bush" (who doesn't vote, but let's not let a silly thing like that get in the way of slander) 90% of the time during a specific period of time.  Other times he's voted against party lines far more often. 

On the other hand you have Obama, who has voted along democratic party lines FAR more often than McCain has voted along party lines.  During some periods of time, Obama has voted with his party 100% of the time, and the rest of his numbers might not be up that far, but they're always quite high.  Obama votes with his party far more than McCain votes with his.  "Maverick" might be going a bit too far, but McCain is way more of a party outsider than Obama, who pretty much just does what he's told.  To say otherwise is just wrong.

I believe here it's libel.

I agree that Bush is a terrible president, McCain has proven to be just as willing to use hate as a tool, and Obama is, at least, a reasonable canidate who wants to do good. I don't find your...Essay? Blog? To be particularly objective or informative, though.

I think mccain is fine, he is not bush, he has been forced into bed with bush a few times and clearly not enjoyed it.

Though i think barack obama is the better of the two for this particular moment in time.

Either way its a win to get rid of bush.

OroJackson said:

"That was probably the stupidest thing I have ever read, now let me tell you why:

Jensonb said:

Barack Obama represents and embodies the ideals and aspirations of so many people like nobody has in a long time.

            - Not since Lenin and Stalin,Mao Zedong, and Hilter.

Ouch. I felt that from here!

Wow, I completely agree Jenson, I always thought of you as the guy that hated politics but I can see your in the same boat as me, the Obama boat.

"Couple real quick things.  No matter who was running on the Republican ticket this year, they would be called "another George Bush."  To argue otherwise would be crazy.  And McCain "voted with bush" (who doesn't vote, but let's not let a silly thing like that get in the way of slander) 90% of the time during a specific period of time.  Other times he's voted against party lines far more often. 

On the other hand you have Obama, who has voted along democratic party lines FAR more often than McCain has voted along party lines.  During some periods of time, Obama has voted with his party 100% of the time, and the rest of his numbers might not be up that far, but they're always quite high.  Obama votes with his party far more than McCain votes with his.  "Maverick" might be going a bit too far, but McCain is way more of a party outsider than Obama, who pretty much just does what he's told.  To say otherwise is just wrong."

Well said Jensonb, Out of Many, One. E Pluribus Unum.  Barack Obama has proven that he has the vision to lead America in a new direction in the realm of foriegn policy. He understands that "Pro-West" dictators are no better than the "evil-doers" and that it doesn't make sense to "promote democracy" in Iraq and then support Musharraf's military coup or continue to support the brutal Saudi regime at the same time. This is why we need to work towards a free, independent Palestine, and eliminate imports of Middle-Eastern Oil to pressure these nations to embrace civil rights. We can't bomb away Arab-extremists, but we can draw down their numbers by winning the hearts and minds of the people and not just paying off their leaders.

John McCain on the other hand has embraced the old Cold War way of thinking, where as long as we can get a "Pro-West" dictator in office, the United States will be safe. This has a way of biting us in the ass later. By supporting the unpopular Shah Pahlavi, we only turned the Iranians against us and eventually the Iranians turned to a dangerous Theocracy. It wouldn't of happened if we had only supported their DEMOCRACY in the first place. Barack Obama understands this.

As to charges of Socialism, please. Barack Obama simply wants to recalibrate the Progressive Income Tax. The people in the highest Income Tax bracket will pay 39% like they did in the 90s instead of 35%. It's called Fiscal Responsibility, something Republicans have always lied about having. While Democrats usually pay for their higher spending responsibly, Reagan and Bush have contributed to the vast majority to the National Debt, both tied like marionettes to the Military Industrial Complex.

McCain has some experience sure, but wants to lead the nation in the wrong direction. Vote for Barack Obama on Nov. 4th to give our nation the change it deserves.

For 40 years the Democrats ruled over congress and then the Republican revolution of 1992 happened. The Republicans talked about their legacy and how they would thrive as long as the Democrats... My how far they have fallen, that's the story for me. I'm an independent, leaning toward Libertarian views. I first voted in 1984, here is my list of presidential votes. 84-Reagan, 88-Bush, 92-Perot, 96-Clinton, 00-Gore, 04-Bush and 08... Well, I'm using this forum to announce, I've changed my mind. I'm voting for Obama, may my Republican friends forgive me, but my gut tells me it's time.

Thanks Jenson, I found your post a good read. As a British citizen I found it summed up most of my feelings on American politics very well.

McCain is oven chips. Nov 4th.

"For 40 years the Democrats ruled over congress and then the Republican revolution of 1992 happened. The Republicans talked about their legacy and how they would thrive as long as the Democrats... My how far they have fallen, that's the story for me. I'm an independent, leaning toward Libertarian views. I first voted in 1984, here is my list of presidential votes. 84-Reagan, 88-Bush, 92-Perot, 96-Clinton, 00-Gore, 04-Bush and 08... Well, I'm using this forum to announce, I've changed my mind. I'm voting for Obama, may my Republican friends forgive me, but my gut tells me it's time."

OroJackson
>Oh, and of course Al Gore is more qualified, after all he did invent the internet.....*facepalm*

Just letting everyone know that Gore never said he invented the internet, he just said he helped start making the Internet more accessible in Washington (this was the mid to late nineties). Someone (I can't remember who - some Conservative spinmaster, I think) twisted what Gore said, and by the time it was cleared up, it was too late. I thought everyone knew that. Oh, and *facepalm* squared.

>Bush didn't kill the economy, it was the democrats who took control of congress and let Freddie Mac and Fannie May run loss and >causing the crisis in the housing markets that we see now, thus causing the economic crisis.

So a 3 trillion dollar war had nothing to do with our crisis? Imagine that three trillion if it went into our economy. he also is leaving us with a trade deficit (Clinton left with a surplus). But whenever the Dems come into control, anything that happens is deemed their fault, no matter what happened before. Oh, and George signed that Bill into law, too. 

> How is Obama going to restore America's standing in the world? By inching ever closer to Socialism and Marxism?

Or let our country slide deeper and deeper into the plutocracy it already is? I'm sure everyone loves how they raise prices, keep normal people's wages stagnant while giving themselves double digit percentage wages. What's not to love?

>An American election is not a popularity contest

Then explain Palin. All the posts about her seem to be either about her hawtness or things like her 100K clothes shopping spree.

>How is Sarah Palin dangerous or damaging? by being an expert on energy issues and special needs families or by standing up to >her own party (something Obama has not done ONCE in his political career)

Could someone please explain this "standing up to your party" thing (people said this about McCain : hence the "maverick"). Now if Palin or McCain "stood up" to their party - we're not talking about disagreeing with slightly, but ** standing up to them**  Now if McCain/Palin stood up to their party, doesn't that mean one of the two are wrong? (Unless this is all an act to distance themselves from Bush, then we can just call them deceptive phonies) If it was "their own party" that was wrong, why do people gleefully bash the Democratic party then? Isn't there something wrong with the Republican philosphy/ how they run things? if McCain/Palin are wrong, why do we want them in office? What's next, Christians against Christ? The Pope against the Catholic Church?

>The republicans are the only SANE option, as the "Change we Need" is change towards higher taxes in a troubled >economic times

Only taxing the rich, you know the people making 100K+ a year. If you're making that much and are experiencing "troubled economic times," you'll just have to not buy that platinum door knocker or whatever.

[JensonB]

(Barack Obama represents and embodies the ideals and aspirations of so many people like nobody has in a long time)

[OroJackson]

 >Not since Lenin and Stalin,Mao Zedong, and Hilter.

Thank you, I've been waiting for weeks for someone to pull that fallacy (my friend on another board and I compare posts - and we have a contest to see who found the "best" fallacy). Anyways, see Reductio ad Hitlerum (that one's in Wikipedia and our "favorite" one so far - I think it's the Latinizing), and then correlate to Reductio ad Leninum, Stalinum, and Mao Zedongum.

Just because someone "embodies the ideals..." doesn't automatically make them like Hitler.

"Only taxing the rich, you know the people making 100K+ a year. If you're making that much and are experiencing "troubled economic times," you'll just have to not buy that platinum door knocker or whatever.

"

[Jayge]
>lol @ saying that anyone making over 100k is rich XD

Quoting, Wikipedia "Household income in the United States"
> In 2007, the median annual household income rose 1.3% to $50,233.00 according to the Census Bureau.

So making a little less than twice the median income isn't rich? Now that's rich, lol XD

"[Jayge]
>lol @ saying that anyone making over 100k is rich XD

Quoting, Wikipedia "Household income in the United States"
> In 2007, the median annual household income rose 1.3% to $50,233.00 according to the Census Bureau.

So making a little less than twice the median income isn't rich? Now that's rich, lol XD"

"

"

Americans believe taxes are evil. BUT if its to build a new sports stradium then thats perfectly fine.

Want to raise our taxes 5% to put all our kids through school and college! FUCK THAT!
Want to raise our taxes 5% to build a sports dome we'll just end up tearing down in 5 years after you dont lower the taxes and raise them actually another 2 % to build the new sports dome...YES! do that! we need a new sports dome!

"Americans believe taxes are evil. BUT if its to build a new sports stradium then thats perfectly fine.

Want to raise our taxes 5% to put all our kids through school and college! FUCK THAT!
Want to raise our taxes 5% to build a sports dome we'll just end up tearing down in 5 years after you dont lower the taxes and raise them actually another 2 % to build the new sports dome...YES! do that! we need a new sports dome!"

[Jayge]
>Median income taking into account the entire population, which encompasses a huge number of demographics, including families, >bachelors, CEOs, people in the slums, country bumpkins, and god knows who else.

You take the median and make a range above and below that number and that's the middle class. Lower than that is poor, above that range is rich. I think double the median is a safe bet they're rich, not fabulously wealthy, but rich.

>The amount of money needed to sustain any person in their own unique situation or location is vastly different.

We're talking $100K here. Even if you spend $50,000 in rent, that leaves you $50,000. If you pay 50,000 for your house, that's over $4000 a month, and unless you're in Manhattan or Beverly Hills (or other ultra-rich areas), you can get a really nice place. People can "sustain" themselves for far less.

>To say that $100,000 is in any way "rich" without any form of reference parameters is incredibly stupid.

Hence the median income for last year, that's my reference parameter.

Obama 08

100,000 is an irrelevant number. Anyone making under 250,000 a year will see a bigger tax cut under Obama. I don't care where the middle falls; if you make over 250,000 a year, you're not having trouble paying your mortgage, you're not having trouble paying for health care or putting your kids through school, and  you should pay out of your excess. The police work extra hard to protect your massive house, the roads around your house are probably well paved, and the schools in your area are almost certainly better than those in the hood. If you don't want to pay for those privileges, be prepared to give them up. McCain is asking the poor, who spent almost 100% of their income just to survive to pay a greater portion of the country's bills than Obama is. The rich, who do not need to spent 100% of their income to survive, should pay proportionally more taxes not just because they benefit from government services more, but becuase they can. Our country USED TO be about allowing the poor to work their way up the social ranks and make big money by working their hands to the bone. Many people in my family made it rich that way.  My great uncles went from being so poor that my grandmother (their sister) had to quit school at grade 6 to help to work and feed the family, to having 15 million each then they died. It's almost impossible these days make any but the smallest jumps up the social scale. You almost NEVER hear of a rags to riches story, and part of that is caused by Republican bullshit that asks the people who have no cash to pay for a bigger piece slice of pie than they are capable of, while giving the rich, who already made it, all the cuts.

Let me sum up. A vote for McCain is a vote for cementing the social structure as it is, and ensruing that your children will be no better off than you are. A vote for McCain is a vote to kill the American dream; to tell the hard working poor "you'll never make it", and to push us one step closer to the stagnant economies in Europe in which the poor stay poor and the rich stay rich, and to push us one step closer to a plutocracy where the rich decide how the poor live, and the poor can't do a damn thing to change their station in society. A vote for McCain demonstrates three things; either you don't understand the issues and you've been baffled by the bullshit that the McCain campaign has been pushing, that you understand the issues and are so wealthy that you don't mind shitting all over those less well off than you just so that you can afford a second summer home, or that you don't mind seeing the American dream die.

I believe you have a great post Jenson, and Barack Obama would be a great president.  I might consider McCain but Palin is a nutjob and a horrible continuation of the Bush legacy.