Hillary and Bernie

Am I the only one who thinks that Hillary and Bernie are co-ordinating campaigns? When Bernie acts crazy, he helps make Hillary look more moderate. And Trump can't full-on attack Hillary until she's the official Democratic nominee. -- My hypothesis is that they are co-ordinating, and then Hillary will ask Bernie to be her VP on the ticket. Bernie is a white guy (to balance the ticket), and he might take some of the crazy/indie vote away from Trump.

Timing: Crimean peninsula

So far, everyone is complaining about how Obama's sanctions (20 Russians can't go to USA) is a joke/weak response to the "invasion" of the Crimean peninsula. Anyone else curious about the timing of this invasion? Russia just hosted the Olympics (which helped its "status" in the international community.) And this is an election year in America. Remember the gaffe where Obama was caught whispering to Putin, that Obama will have "more flexibility" after the election? --- Putin is a (relatively) smart cookie. If he wants to expand Russian territory, the Crimean peninsula is the best place to start. And now would be the time to do it. --- Would a Crimean war help or hurt Democrats? People support their president in war time, so maybe Obama's Democratic party might pick up some votes this 2014 election (ending the Congressional deadlock?) Or maybe people want a conservative Republican strong daddy figure so will vote Republican? --- I suspect Putin prefers dealing with the "weak/diplomatic" Obama over the "rash/war hawk" McCain. (Anyone else wondering if McCain will run for President in 2016?) I also suspect Obama is currently trying to put together a "multinational" sanction team. The current "joke/weak response" is all Obama wants to do just as USA. If we give him some time, he might be able to get all of Europe/Asia to sanction Russia too. But would that take too long (once Crimea joins Russian, how hard will it be to get it back to Ukraine?) --- Finally, if the majority of voting Crimeans want to join Russia, what are we trying to stop them? (Okay, the 96% figure is suspicious, but I'd guess 51% of Crimeans really would prefer Russia.) I say, we tell Crimea/Russia - you guys can do what you want, but you have to pay 10Billion to Ukraine, becuase they've been "investing" their energy/banking into Crimea, so if you want to separate, you have to pay back what they have been giving you. Then Ukraine can use that 10 billion to build up its military, and can worry less about Russia expanding further (into places where it might not be wanted.)

Syria vs America: World Police

Okay, Syria is bad. I get it. But REALLY Obama? Did you learn nothing from W Bush? There is lots of evil in the world, and it's not our job to fight all of it. Has the White House really forgotten how complex Middle East relations are? Or do they have some weird strategy, viewing Syria as a way to break the log jam (and the White House just doesn't want to bother regular Americans with news of their risky strategy.) Dislike Obama for this. Really dislike.

speechless obama

What with national eavesdropping and terrorism defense, Fox News makes a big deal about how Obama's staff did not have Obama's speech ready for him. (Obviously indicating that Obama is a robot.) Sorry Fox News, that just makes you look desperate to make Obama look bad for no reason. (Seriously, isn't it better for Obama not to say anything and wait, instead of making stuff up and screwing up.) Bush was funny (laughed at, not with) when he tried to extemperize erroneously. Obama is smart enough not to say anything.

Obamacare's unpopularity

Soo, back during the 2012 election, when people learned of a girl w/ a heart murmur that could get health care now - Obamacare became more popular. Now, it is less popular. Why? Because of the power of video. There has been lots of ads against Obamacare lately, so people like it less (even if the issue remains the same.) Why are these ads running? Do people think they can repeal Obamacare (after losing the election?) Also, I thought the insurance companies got on board (once the low-cost government option was quietly removed.) So who is funding these ads and what are they accomplishing?

Gun control revisited

Okay, so I'm not really for/against gun control. I don't buy guns, and I don't think "gun control laws" are going to stop criminals who go around shooting people. But I am disappointed that special interest/lobbyist (again) manage to beat gun control laws that over 50% of America supports...because there is an election in 2014. It just goes to show how a majority of swing-politicians are more spineless than non-kneejerk decisive. You'd think leaders would base their decisions on rational thought, not on getting swayed by emotional reactions by the masses, or by financial pressures in next year's elections....

Middle East tension

America's support for Israel has caused tension in the middle east. My solution? Let whatever Palestinians who want to move back, move back. Most have lives in their "new" territory, and few are crazy enough to move in to non-muslim nation because that's where they lived over 60 years ago. Even if you have to "buy" peace (ie real estate, so the Palestinians who move back get "free" housing") so few would do it - and it's still much cheaper than security costs the tensions entail.

Gay Marriage

I am AGAINST "gay marriage" but FOR "gay marriage." What? The problem is that "marriage" means different things to different people. I am AGAINST "gay religious marriage." Politicians should not be able to tell a Catholic priest that he is REQUIRED to marry two people of the same gender. I am FOR "gay judicial marriage." Two consenting adults should be able to do whatever they want as long as they're not hurting anyone. If a partner is on life support, the other partner should be able to make decisions (without filling out a power of attorney.) --- (Half of) the problem is that religious folks knee-jerk to "gay marriage" as if the government is going to automatically start butting into their cherished religious ceremonies. The (simultaneous other half of) the problem is gay people aren't sensitive to how cherished marriage is to traditional folks. I think gay people would be shocked if Catholics started saying "We should have a Catholic bah mitzfah!" Granted, "civil union" sounds less romantic than "marriage" - and "gay judicial marriage" sounds just as boring as "civil union." But that's what it is - if you're protesting for equal (legal) rights - go for those - you can always have your "romantic marriage" as a separate ceremony that is unrecognized by the government. (Which is what everyone else does anyway.) ---- So I am AGAINST "gay traditional-religious marriage" but FOR "Gay Judicial Marriage."

Sequestration

Seriously? The "most working" plan is the one that was intended to be so bad that it would be horrific if it happened? And yet, Dems and Reps seem to agree that it's better than compromising (which would look bad to their voter/supporters.) I thought they were going to do a last minute "compromise but moan about it." But now I think the "temporary sequester" is going to be a "permanent sequester". Which is fine, I don't think we needed a giant military anyway. (But I do think we need the jobs making weapons that we'd never use...)

gun control

Really? Obama, would you be pushing for gun control if there wasn't a recent rash of shootings? Policy should be made based on need, not based on emotional fervor due to "events of the moment."

slow news period

You know it's a slow news period when the headlines are about Obama appointing people (95% of Americans will never be able to name/describe what they do.) And (obviously) Republicans have to be against it, because, well, that's what Republicans do.

Dems vs Republicans: Compromise

both Dems and Republicans moaned about the fiscal cliff compromise. At least in public, to make their crazy supporters like them more. But the more they do this, the more they polarize the nation and make future compromises harder.

Hmm, after the election and billions of dollars spent - everything is EXACTLY the same. Re: fiscal cliff and partisianship.

Check the record: Auto bankruptcy vs Terror

I didn't think that the "Check the transcript, Candy" line would have affected me. (What's the difference b/w saying the word "terror" the day after?)

But during the debate, when Obama said, "Check the transcript" Re: auto bailouts -- I believed Obama was right again (when watching the debates, and when I internet searched afterwards - yeah, Obama was right again.)

Obama was (technically) right about his terror comment. And Obama is (technically) right about Romney denying the auto industry a bailout.

Romney wanted government help AFTER the bankruptcy. But he was against government help DURING the bankruptcy (ie [real direct quote] "allow these companies to go through bankruptcy"). Knowing that there will be money AFTER the bankruptcy does not help DURING the bankruptcy - especially when there is no other source of money to be lent.

So Romney said: "Under no circumstances would I do anything other than to help this industry get on its feet." Actually, if the circumstances were telling Americans that their tax dollars would (unpopularly) bail out the auto industry - Romney would NOT help the auto industry get on its feet.

Romney might have thought that "tough love" would have helped the auto industry more - but Romney's "tough love" would mean that the auto industry wouldn't have been able to go through a "managed bankruptcy."

The bigger point to me is that Romney will say anything to win points, and hope people are stupid/trusting enough to believe that help AFTER the bankruptcy equals help DURING the bankruptcy.

And I start trusting Obama more - when he says Obama is right if you check the transcript -- you can bet Obama will be right if you check the transcript.

3rd debate: Obama won foreign policy

Obama won the third presidential debate. Romney lost. Obama actually persuaded me that he would be better than Romney at foreign policy. (Maybe because I don't follow foreign policy as closely, so there was more room to persuade me.)

My previous complaint against Obama was that he couldn't unilaterally co-operate with enemies like Russia or Iran. (Just like he couldn't unilateraly cooperate with Congressional Republicans.)

My complaint against Romney was that his "competitive" approach doesn't fix everything either.

During the debate, Obama persuaded me that he could cooperate with our allies (and undecideds) and then act together with the world to stop world enemies.

This approach is vastly superior to Romney's "Cowboy foreign policy" - have a GIANT American military, and then our enemies won't dare act up.

---

Romney said America should have immediately imposed stricter sanctions (unilaterally) against Iran to deter nuclear weapon development.

Obama said, "We could have done that immediately, but I was smarter to take the time to develop alliances and have world sanctions against Iran - which work better than super harsh sanctions from America only."

Romney wants to unilaterally have America give guns to rebels - Obama wants to work with international allies. Obama's way takes more time, but will probably have better long-term results.

Point to Obama.

---

Romney had a litany of how things are worse in the Middle East

Obama had a list of stuff he's accomplished.

I'm siding with Obama - there has been some progress (even Romney doesn't disagree.) But Romney seems to think that since Obama hasn't fixed EVERYTHING in the Middle East, Obama is bad on foreign policy.

So I guess the only way Romney would have been satisfied with Obama's foreign policy is if ALL the world's problems were fixed in 4 years?

The biggest charge against Obama's specific policies is that Obama projected "weakness." I'm pretty sure that Iran is pursuing nuclear weapons...because Iran wants nuclear weapons.

I don't think Iran would have acted all peaceful, but since Obama went on an apology tour and met with "enemies" - that means Iran should make nuclear weapons now!

---

Romney: Attacking me is not an agenda.

Seriously? Romney, your "strategy" is just to point out everything that's wrong with the world and blame it on Obama's weakness.

I know what I'm getting with Obama - Obama doesn't need an agenda for the next 4 years. It's YOUR job to propose YOUR agenda, and show why YOURS will work better than Obama.

---

Military Romney said that Obama's military has the least boats since before WW2. Obama: "Yeah, but we also have less bayonets and horses!"

Point to Obama.

Romney really doesn't make a case for why we need more military spending than Obama wants. This played to my pre-existing bias, but Romney really doesn't have a way to spend the money - he just wants to spend it so our enemies will think "America is spending more military money- let's do what America says!"

There's no reason to think that will work. And it seems like a waste of (a lot) of money.

---

So with the debates over - I'll think some more about everything and post who I'll vote for and why, soon.

Last debate: Expectations

They're going to talk about how China is ruining America's economy. They'll both make China sound bad and promise they will stop China from being so bad. Romney might try to sound tougher, but I doubt most will understand the difference between their policies.

Obama will make fun of Romney for thinking Russia is our major threat.

Romney will attack Obama for Libya - which doesn't seem like that big a deal to me

Romney will attack Obama for the gun walking to Mexico thing - which has no real details for anyone.

---

Neither side will explain specifically how they will fix the Euro-zone problem. (Which I think has a greater impact on the domestic economy than Russia/China.)

---

Obama will brag how he ordered special forces to kill Bin Laden. (Which is the fruition of intelligence garnered from W. Bush's years of work. So Obama will blame Bush for the bad things, but will take credit for the good things.)

Romney will brag how he won't cut military spending - and get challenged by Obama.

Obama will not "sleep through the debate" - like he was accused of during debate #1.

I doubt the debate will change anyone's mind about who to vote for, but Romney supporters will be fired up to vote for Romney, and Obama supporters will be encouraged to show up on election day.

Military Spending: Romney vs Obama

I'm not a big fan of deficit spending.

I'm against Obama borrowing $10 million from China to hire 100K more teachers, because we don't really need them that badly.

I'm also against Romney borrowing $100 million from China to maintain current military spending.

After World War II, we stopped building as many tanks. It would have been wasteful to keep spending the same amount of money on tanks.

Similarly, wrapping up Afghanistan/Iraq/etc - we should cut down on military spending.

Romney wants to keep spending on the military because... he thinks military spending is good. (It's not like he's said, "We need to build more submarines, because our current fleet is too small!")

Romney thinks that China/Russia will be impressed if America spends 30X as much on our military, instead of only 15X as much as them.

Really? We already have a much bigger military than them. If we have a SUPER much bigger military - that's what's going to convince them to behave?

I think that the extra money for the military is just "vanity spending" so Romney can feel tough - and that's a lot of money just for vanity.

Libya: Obama vs Romney

So the big "gaffe" in the 2nd debate was that moderator Candy agreed with Obama that he used the words "act of terror" the day after in the Rose Garden, which embarrassed Romney.

Me? I don't care. I don't blame Obama for not realizing that al Quida might attack an African embassy on the anniversery of Sept 11. (It would be more likely that they'd re-attack New York - but if we had to wait 10 more seconds for airport security just because it was an anniversery- there would be complaints of stupid precautions.)

And it's not like Obama would know 100% of what really happened immediately, as news came in, he revealed the extent of what he was certain. (He might not have revealed everything he suspected, but that's a lot of unsubstantiated rumours going round.)

And yes, "Protesting a Youtube video" could be considered an "act of terror" - in a broad sense. I think if the worst Romney can say about Obama's anti-terrorist record is 4 people dead 100,000 miles away - then Obama must be doing pretty well.

Obama vs Romney: Foreign Policy

I doubt the last debate is going to change anyone's vote. Why? Because it is about foreign policy.

It's not that I don't care about foreign policy. It's just that I care about domestic policy so much more.

It would be different if one candidate's foreign policy was better than the other. Instead, they are both different, and bad in different ways.

Obama's approach is "cooperative." After W. Bush made America's international reputation become that of a "bully" - Obama went in the opposite direction. Obama tried to play nice with everyone, NOT taking the lead on anything, because that would make America seem like a bully. (This infuriates Romney Republicans - who think that any time America isn't trying to beat up everyone else, America is making an "apology." However, only Romney Republicans think Obama has "apologized" for America - and even if Obama had apologized, I don't think it would be that bad.)

The problem with Obama's cooperative approach to foreign policy is the same as a cooperative approach domestically. Namely, you can't unilaterally cooperate. If Republcans don't want to cooperate with Obama on health care, Obama can't make them. Similarly, if China doesn't want to cooperate with Obama on trade, (or Russia on military) - Obama can't make them cooperate either. So I guess Obama's approach is to "stagnate" and not do anything.

Romney's approach is "competitive" - which seems like the alternative if "cooperative" doesn't work out. Unfortunately, competitive doesn't really work. If China won't trade fair, we'll beat China up? Acting competitive isn't going to progress things any more than trying to unilaterally cooperate.

I think the best foreign policy is "finesse." Acting cooperatively or competitively depending on the situation. Which is probably what Obama and Romney will both do, although neither will admit it, since finesse is too complex for a 2 second sound byte. So they both spout their cartoon-ish extreme positions, when they'd probably both do the same thing in the same foreign situation...

Which is why the last debate probably isn't going to matter.

2nd Obama/Romney debate = depressing

Well, my predictions just before the second debate have come true. (I'm not sure what the "gaffe" that the media will choose to amplify - I'm guessing Obama's statement of how he was calling Libya a terrorist attack "the next day.")

Obama was definitely more...insistent. So I guess Democrats can say he did "better."

Romney was as aggressive as before, so Republicans will claim "Romney won again."

As for my opinion? Both lost. Big time.

---

The reason that debates don't affect polls/voters? It's because the candidates don't say anything that we haven't heard before. They stick to their speaking points, and avoid the question.

---

Q: What about gun control/AK-47?

Obama: I'm taking a broader approach to control violence. Like school system and education. Romney will not hire more teachers like me. This is why my education plan is good....

Romney: Controlling violence is important, and I think that keeping youths in school and happier families will make things better. Let me tell you why Obama is wrong....

---

Depressing. Neither candidate will talk about what voters want/need to hear. Both candidates will find some way to talk about whatever their advisers say will win them "points."

And by improving their "debate score" both candidates just depress voters looking for content.

---

As for style? Romney did as well as in his first debate. Obama improved, but he still sounded like his Saturday Night Live caricature. (Its his rising/falling inflection.) Obama didn't say "Umm" as often, but he did seem to keep insisting for more time...

I will say that Obama's final response was the smoothest of the night. ("What is the major misperception of you by voters?) Romney: I care about 100% of America. Obama: Government doesn't create jobs. I care about everyone, and that's why I am asking for your vote.

I think the closing comment was the strongest moment in the debate. Romney (smooth at answering other questions) - seemed like that insincere televangelist that's been bothering me.

Obama really does care about 100% and really is trying and will fight. (My problem is that him trying and fighting may not be the most effective plan, and will definitely add to the deficit.) But Obama was "himself" at the end. (When he was "actively trying to be aggressive - Obama wasn't "himself.")

I think Romney's extensive debate practice has been paying off style-wise, but his content is non-existent (other than to say "Obama is bad, and let me tell you my non-specific non-plan.).

I suspect my previous "conspiracy theory" (Obama intentionally underperformed at the first debate) is unlikely - if that happened, Obama would have outperformed at this debate.

Obama improved, and he will improve some more (style-wise) at the third debate.

Content is another story though...