If he will lie to and betray his wife, what will he do to you, a stranger?

As evidence that Americans do not want a leader to take a tougher stand against the banks I posit the following:

Obama won unopposed in the Democratic Primary.

The most pro-theft candidate won in the GOP primary, while the fellow with the most bona fides against the banks, Ron Paul, did not win any states (disputed).

I will tell exactly what Americans want: they want the abundance they have taken for granted all their lives to continue without much effort or sacrifice on their part. Thus, the biggest liar usually wins the election.

Obama was clearly the 2008 Liar-in-Chief with his Hope and Change ad campaign, next to McCain’s honest war lust. Romney is trying to coverup his hatred for average people, but he isn’t that good at it. Obama wins another term.

FYI these polls are complete horseshit. A manufactured horse race.

For real change see “proportional representation”.

No.

The anti-austerity parties will garner an even larger percentage of the vote as the inertia voters realize that it’s ok not to vote for who the nice people on TV tell you to vote for; after all, so many of your neighbors didn’t.

The resulting anti-austerity coalition will be able to drive a harder bargain against the EU, namely a whole bunch of free money in exchange for not leaving the Euro (yet).

It will be up to the Eurocrats to decide which contagion is worse: financial or leftist political (with a dash of Naziism thrown in for flavor).

Shockwaves through the GOP?

They just crammed the author of Obamacare Rmoney down the rank-and-file’s throat!

I have honestly never seen a Rmoney sign or talked to an actual person who supports him. Palin, yes. Cain, yes. Ron Paul, of course.

Romney?

I question if he got more than 10% of actual voters in any state.

can inalienable right be up to a vote?

remember that when you rah-rah for democracy

The election of the first post-WWII European Nazi officials should bolster the argument the FDL is trying to make:

Passing the football back and forth between the center and the right leads to public frustration and extremism.

B. Hussein Obama has certainly fueled extremism in America; Rmoney would be even worse once he betrays the populist right on just about everything and governs strictly for the top .01%.

For the record, it was hyperinflation (a form of austerity) that led to the Nazis taking over Germany – because after decades of post WWI Keynesianism, Europeans weren’t “all dead”.

These polls are absolute horseshit.

Designed to create an illusion of a “horse race” when there really isn’t one.

America will look at the last 4 years and conclude either A) They weren’t that bad or B) they could have been much worse but weren’t.

They will certainly smell a wolf in the GOP: as Coriolanus reminds us “nature teaches beasts to know their friends”. Romney can scarcely hide his contempt for the masses.

Obama 291
Romney 247

Obama 48%
Romney 44%
Third Party 6%

The arch-goal of those who hate this is to make this taboo.

For instance, those who support war need to be shunned, excommunicated, pilloried, and vilified as much as or more as if they called some one a racial epithet (for which people do get fired, etc., recall some one using the phrase “chink in the armor” when referring to the weakness of an Asian basketball player – people who bring the 4 horseman of the apocalypse down on desperate villagers are “Serious thinkers” for contrast)

Military Keynesianism: the adroit point out that in the long run, these attacks will increase hatred against Americans, and hurt American interests.

The response? In the long run, we’re all dead.

juliania, Masoninblue, The Oracle: real Progressive discourse.

Thank you for that.

Let me define a scenario where a jury will not find Zimmerman guilty:

1. Zimmerman asserts that when he and Martin first exchanged words, Martin had a problem with Zimmerman tailing him and calling (presumably the cops), Martin had a problem with the ramifications to his own legal standing and also with the potential racial bias of Zimmerman and he attacked Zimmerman.

2. In the course of battle, Martin had the upper hand but since he was unarmed was not able to truly defeat Zimmerman, though he was able to cause several open wounds on Zimmerman.

3. Zimmerman pulled his gun and shot Martin at point blank range, killing him.

Pulling a gun during battle definitely meets the “stand your ground” threshhold if you are on “your ground” or you were not the aggressor in neutral ground.

There was a fellow the other day on FDL who said that the ballistics evidence would corroborate or falsify a point blank shot.

A couple of points:

The prosecution is not necessarily competent or truly going for a conviction, they may be doing an “aw shucks, he got away” routine. They may not necessarily have the evidence many are alleging. As Dr. House always says “Everybody Lies”.

Is Zimmerman compos mentis? I don’t see a monster as some have made him out to be; I see a washout who “dreamed of being a police man” but couldn’t meet even those dubious prerequisites. A man with a pre-adolescent mentality, likely autism-spectrum.

People fetishized Martin though daily people like him are gunned down without their fanfare, both before and after Martin’s death. I see the lust for a victory in another skirmish in the “culture war”, not genuine human pathos.

It will hit 4 dollars in my neck of the woods, besides, the alternative, deflation, is a corollary to another downturn: not to be wished for.

A fight broke out, a man pulled a gun and killed his opponent. A trial is necessary, vilifying said man who appears to not be of sound mind is inhumane.

These two lives have become a battleground for the “culture war”, the pity and sorrow expressed is a thin mask for battle-rage.