Welcome to the blog of Indian 007

Like a beacon unto the world ...

Monday, November 19, 2012

Obama vs. Romney: Could anyone tell the difference?

This is really funny! All Americans should watch this video, as well as others who closely follow US Elections. Could anyone tell the difference between the two Presidential candidates? Someone did a real good job at compiling this video.

Romney vs. Obama: Same Issues, Same Answers !

Both candidates agree upon all the major issues and there's not a dime's worth of difference between the two. This is a classic example why American elections are mere jokes: it's "the Devil in PINK" or "the Devil in BLUE". Either way Americans have to settle for a devil! It's true, as one author concluded, these candidates who eventually gets to run for the office of US President could appeal only to the least intelligent and the most gullible.

Even more ironic is the state of democracy, which apparently is defined as the rule of majority. The website of George Mason University tracks voter turnout for general and primary elections. According to the site, for instance, only 61.6% of eligible voters voted in the 2008 general election. If roughly half of that voting public voted for Obama and the other half for McCain, that still leaves more people (~39%) "voting" for "none of the above" than either of the two candidates. Yet their votes don't seem to count at all. Democracy at work! The numbers could be similar (or lower) this time. Data available from all the swing states show, Obama's victory margin reduced by 50% or more from his 2008 results.  

If people actually believed that majority rule was the proper way to organize society, then how could they ignore the huge numbers of people who consider these nuts worthless? Makes no sense!

Apparently, a huge number of Americans don't seem to vote at all; probably because of the disgusting nature of American politics and more so rightly this time because of disenfranchising Ron Paul supporters - an effect that was largely ignored by the main-stream-media

Ron Paul effect was a key factor largely ignored this time - the attack on his supporters, vote rigging and tremendous fraud committed to kick him out of race - the lone sane voice among all the other nuts that were on parade. It was quite surprising to see even Bill Maher admits to that fact. One only had to look outside the main-scum-media web to realize how popular the Ron Paul movement was among the youngsters, veterans and so many others. The following excerpt from the article (How GOP Threw the Election) best summarize how Ron Paul was treated at the Republican National Convention (RNC), who brought with him the youngest delegation in the history of Republican party:

"When they arrived, their signs were confiscated and torn up before their eyes. The Maine delegation was summarily unseated and sent home because they contained too many Paul supporters. At the last minute, the Rules Committee changed the ballot access requirement from five states to eight states to prevent Ron Paul’s name from being entered into nomination. They even prevented his name from being mentioned from the podium!
The establishment’s abominable treatment of Ron Paul supporters at the RNC was only the culmination of a corrupt and shameful primary season. In Louisiana, Ron Paul delegates were arrested when it became clear that they were in the majority at the state convention. In Arizona, desperate party bosses turned off the lights at the state convention to prevent Ron Paul supporters from being elected to a party position. In both Maine and Nevada, Romney campaign officials were caught distributing fake delegate slates. In Missouri, police were called to shut down the St. Charles caucus when a Ron Paul victory appeared imminent."
Had this man been allowed to run for the office (assuming free and fair election) most likely President Obama would have been history. Thank God, no sensible person can run for US Presidency. Unfortunately, that's the rule of the game! Americans are only allowed to choose between 2 idiots who make a big fuss on lesser issues like "same-sex marriage" and "abortion" while agree with each other on all the major issues (as in the video above). This is simply the reason why American foreign policies have never changed in the last several decades despite both Republican and Democratic parties ruled the country.

"Lesser Issues"
The issues of "same-sex marriage" and "abortion" cannot be considered unimportant or downplayed as lesser issues in a society. As these issues can affect families, which are the building blocks of any society, the so-called "lesser issues" can have a large impact on the nation in the long run. However, these are issues that individuals still have a choice over and not forced upon them. That is, these laws do not threaten a person's right to marry an opposite sex or a woman's choice to keep her unborn baby rather than kill. Essentially, they have to do with morals that an individual values and uphold. For instance, if the people who line up voluntarily to kill a life doesn't realize what they are committing is murder, then there's little or nothing you can do to help. This does not have to come down as a political issue or party debate but out of moral conscience. On the other hand, the major issues are likely to affect the nation as a whole such as the Patriot Act, National Defence Authorization Act (NDAA), which affect Civil liberties, Health Care, Foreign policies, Federal Reserve, Economy, Military intervention etc. The following shows a comparison of Obama`s accomplishments with respect to his predecessor Bush summarized from an article carried by the Global Research.

Obama equals Bush with a tan!

"Barack Obama was elected in 2008 with a mandate to change things, not superficially but fundamentally. However, he did not do that in any appreciable way and he did not meet the challenges facing him, nor did he meet his supporters’ expectations. Domestically, Obama did not accomplish much during his first term apart from his half-baked health reform and his even more half-baked financial reform. Internationally, although he tried to extricate the U.S. from Iraqi war mess, he showed a lack of moral character by letting American generals intensify the use of killer drones in Afghanistan and Pakistan, killing thousands of innocent civilians. He also demonstrated a lack of respect for civil liberties by giving his administration the right to target American citizens for extrajudicial assassinations. After the 2008 election, Barack Obama gave the impression that he wanted to be all things to all people. He named to key economic posts persons who had been identified with the previous catastrophic George W. Bush administration. Persuaded by his advisors, he named Timothy Geithner (a large banks’ spokesman from the New York Fed) as Treasury secretary and reappointed Ben Bernanke as Fed chairman, even after it had been demonstrated that Alan Greenspan and Ben Bernanke had heavily contributed in creating the 2001-2005 housing bubble and the subsequent financial debacle that followed. And, for good measure, he chose Rahm Emanuel, a former employee of Goldman Sachs, as his Chief of staff. Surrounded by economic people who would have easily fit into a Republican Bush administration, the Obama administration did not move appreciably from the policies put in place by the previous administration. In early 2009, Harvard economist Larry Summers, President Obama’s first director of the National Economic Council, and former Fed chairman Paul Volcker, among others, advised the new president that he needed to take drastic action toward the largest insolvent banks, lest these failed banks drag the entire U.S. economy down. —Such advice went unheeded".

One is left to the question: What ``change`` has really happened and  what else can we ``hope`` for in the coming years.

No comments:

Post a Comment