Silicon Investor (SI) -- The First Internet Community

STOCKTALK

We've detected that you're using an ad content blocking browser plug-in or feature. Ads provide a critical source of revenue to the continued operation of Silicon Investor. We ask that you disable ad blocking while on Silicon Investor in the best interests of our community. If you are not using an ad blocker but are still receiving this message, make sure your browser's tracking protection is set to the 'standard' level.

Politics : President Barack Obama -- Ignore unavailable to you. Want to Upgrade?

To: LLCF who wrote (128907)	12/18/2012 5:27:32 PM
From: RetiredNow	1 Recommendation Read Replies (1) \| Respond to of 149317

No, I honestly do not think so. I mentioned it, because I have some GOP friends who are convinced Obama is a dictator angling in that direction. I find that to be silly season talk. I was just joking around with koan and manalagi. Here's the relevant part of that post. If Marco Rubio were to run against Obama (not possible, I know), then Marco would lose. Marco simply is not at the same level of political caliber that Obama is. I put Obama and Clinton in a very rarified class of politician. They didn't call Bill "slick willy" for nothing. Both of these guys are politicians par excellence. Some may not like their politics, but they know how to win a large constituency and then keep it. We need a vibrant GOP and a third party in this country. Right now, we have a Dem monopoly in the Executive Branch and I don't see anybody in the GOP who has even a remote chance of beating Hillary in 2016. If we are to have a vibrant Democracy, then we need 1 or 2 more vibrant parties to provide competition to the Dems. Truth be told is that I think the Europeans may have a better system in Parliamentary Democracy, than we do in our 2 party system, that shifts back and forth between long periods with one party monopolizing the White House. We don't really have moderate choices any more. They are all choices of extremes. The Parliamentary system allows many parties to thrive and requires coalitions of competing ideas to come together and compromise in order to win a majority. It's a more pure form of Democracy than what we have. For example. I get to choose between a big spending party that loves war and guns or a big spending party that wants to print, borrow, and spend on welfare. Both of those choices are stupid and terrible to me? Why can't I have a viable choice to have a party that believes in living within its means with a balanced budget, where we spend enough to defend ourselves, but not to be the global police, and we have enough of a safety net so people can ride out a short recession, but not such an extensive net where people don't have to work for 4 years, while the rest of us subsidize them. There never seems to be any choices for moderates and centrists. It's all extreme.