Romney Crushes Obama in 2012 Election "Re-Match" Poll

[rtw1997]

A new poll has found that if a rematch of the 2012 Presidential Election were held today, Mitt Romney would defeat Barack Obama handily, by a 9 point margin.

http://nation.foxnews.com/2014/07/27/poll-romney-would-crush-obama-if-election-held-today

What are your thoughts on this? Who did you support for President? And what do you think is the reason(s) for Obama's low poll numbers as of late?

[Southside]

Fox News? Who would've thought..

[Vlerchan]

Fox left half the poll out:

Former Massachusetts Governor Mitt Romney would beat President Barack Obama if a rematch of their 2012 election was held today, according to a new CNN/ORC poll.

Obama would capture 44 percent of the popular vote while Romney would receive 53 percent.

The poll comes amid growing talk of a potential Romney candidacy in 2016, a move that would mark his third attempt.

However, if Romney did enter the ring again and ran against former Secretary of State Hillary Clinton, he would not do so well.

The poll found that 55 percent would back Clinton while just 44 percent would go for Romney.

The survey was conducted among 1,012 respondents between July 18th and 20th.

http://www.talkradionews.com/us/2014/07/28/poll-romney-win-re-match-lose-hillary.html#.U9z55fldVAA

It seems that America are still Democrat though there's a perceived disconnect between Obama and the solutions that Democrats represent.

Who did you support for President?
Jill Stein.

And what do you think is the reason(s) for Obama's low poll numbers as of late?
I think people are mostly just tired of Obama. He's been in power for six years now and there's simply no spark to him anymore.

Others might have realised that he's just a feel-good extension of Dubya - aside from Obamacare; which I disagree with.

---

You'd also do well to not quote from Fox news if you want to be taken seriously.

[rtw1997]

The poll was not conducted by Fox News.

[Vlerchan]

The poll was not conducted by Fox News.
I get that.

The problem is that Fox News are well known for their selective reporting and glaring biases.

It's no shock that they only reported on the half of the poll that agreed with them.

[rtw1997]

I get that.

The problem is that Fox News are well known for their selective reporting and glaring biases.

It's no shock that they only reported on the half of the poll that agreed with them.

I don't see how the part about Hillary is relevant. My post was about a hypothetical rematch of the 2012 election showing that Romney would best Obama by 9 points. I have seen this reported on other news networks, too, and most of them also have not cited the part about Hillary.

Moreover, it should be noted that Fox News is comparably objective and unbiased when stacked up against other outlets, notably MSNBC, as reported by the Pew Research Center:
http://www.forbes.com/sites/jeffbercovici/2013/03/18/pew-study-finds-msnbc-the-most-opinionated-cable-news-channel-by-far/

[Vlerchan]

I don't see how the part about Hillary is relevant.
I've seen people use the source your referring to as a frame for 'Republicans versus Democrats'.

If you weren't intending for that to occur then that's cool: I still think the fact that America still leans democrat is important however.

Moreover, it should be noted that Fox News is comparably objective and unbiased when stacked up against other outlets.
Your source claims that Fox spend 45% of its time conducting 'factual reporting'. That doesn't exclude the reporting from being twisted or selective.

---

MSNBC is also the left-wing equivalent of Fox. I'd consider it just as thrashy.

[Babs]

Even though Obama hasn't been thee best president, I still sure as hell wouldn't vote for Romney.

[Gamma Male]

Obama took a country that had just suffered 8 years of W and set it back on the right track. And for that, I admire him. That's like a therapist taking in a patient who had been sexually assaulted by her previous therapist and managing to make her well again. Not an easy task.

[Cpt_Cutter]

This is redundant, because people are judging Obama on how he has been president, whereas Romney never got the chance, meaning people are just voting him because they don't like Obama.

[Harry Smith]

This happens every election.

In 2004 everyone said Gore would beat Bush in a rematch and that Gore should run.

In 2008 everyone said Kerry would beat Mccain and that Kerry should run again.

People tend to forget how bad people were in the elections, this is Romney-the flip flopping corporate stooge who didn't hold a single honest view

[Sir Suomi]

However, if Romney did enter the ring again and ran against former Secretary of State Hillary Clinton, he would not do so well.

The poll found that 55 percent would back Clinton while just 44 percent would go for Romney.




If Hillary gets elected, I'm saying fuck it and making my own country on a remote island somewhere.

[Gamma Male]

If Hillary gets elected, I'm saying fuck it and making my own country on a remote island somewhere.

What's so bad about Hilary? She's definitely not the best democratic candidate, but she's better than any of the opposition. Cruz, Romney, Santorum, yuck.

[phuckphace]

What's so bad about Hilary? She's definitely not the best democratic candidate, but she's better than any of the opposition. Cruz, Romney, Santorum, yuck.

how exactly do you figure that? she's a globalist whose actual interests are firmly against those of the middle/working classes, even if she does smile and nod occasionally in favor of a progressive fig leaf or two (gay marriage, handouts for minorities, etc.) Clinton has everything to gain by maintaining the status quo, and in that respect she's 100% identical to her "opponents."

Clinton will probably be the next president though, if I had to guess (http://www.forbes.com/sites/markhendrickson/2014/07/18/the-flood-of-illegal-immigrant-children-why-the-secrecy/). not that it really matters in the scheme of things.

[Chuck_M8]

A new poll has found that if a rematch of the 2012 Presidential Election were held today, Mitt Romney would defeat Barack Obama handily, by a 9 point margin.

http://nation.foxnews.com/2014/07/27/poll-romney-would-crush-obama-if-election-held-today

What are your thoughts on this? Who did you support for President? And what do you think is the reason(s) for Obama's low poll numbers as of late?

I think it is because people are fed up with Obama, which is why the poll numbers are so low. I supported Obama initially, but not anymore.

Even though Romney would win if the 2012 election been re-done, it is still a Democratic nation as a majority, so if he ran again he would surely lose.

[Sir Suomi]

What's so bad about Hilary? She's definitely not the best democratic candidate, but she's better than any of the opposition. Cruz, Romney, Santorum, yuck.

Anyone who can say "What does it matter?" when it involves the potentially avoidable loss of 4 American lives has no damn right to be called the Commander in Chief.

[phuckphace]

Anyone who can say "What does it matter?" when it involves the potentially avoidable loss of 4 American lives has no damn right to be called the Commander in Chief.

well it's not like most of our previous presidents weren't perfectly happy with sending thousands of Americans overseas to die in avoidable foreign conflicts that didn't concern us. any candidate who actually wants to get elected will have already accepted his mandatory role as operator of the neocon meat grinder, into which he will gladly stuff as many teenage lumpenprole soldiers as he can fit (way more than 4) to appease Halliburton and/or the Knesset. news at 11, yo.

[Sir Suomi]

well it's not like most of our previous presidents weren't perfectly happy with sending thousands of Americans overseas to die in avoidable foreign conflicts that didn't concern us. any candidate who actually wants to get elected will have already accepted his mandatory role as operator of the neocon meat grinder, into which he will gladly stuff as many teenage lumpenprole soldiers as he can fit (way more than 4) to appease Halliburton and/or the Knesset. news at 11, yo.

A true leader should do everything in his/her power to stop the deaths of our service men and women. While yes, they must be expected to order operations where casualties will happen, Benghazi is a whole different ball park. And at least our former presidents have at least given us a good reason why they died, unlike that cunt who thinks that it doesn't matter if people know if it was avoidable or not, which is more than likely because it was avoidable. That's complete and utter bullshit.

[phuckphace]

A true leader should do everything in his/her power to stop the deaths of our service men and women. While yes, they must be expected to order operations where casualties will happen, Benghazi is a whole different ball park. And at least our former presidents have at least given us a good reason why they died, unlike that cunt who thinks that it doesn't matter if people know if it was avoidable or not, which is more than likely because it was avoidable. That's complete and utter bullshit.

there really isn't as much of a distinction as you think. a politician who gives a fake memorial speech and sheds crocodile tears over American deaths is a neocon traitor nevertheless. "today we come together to honor Pvt Jones' (completely unnecessary and avoidable) sacrifice (that I sent him into because I'm a neocon and it gives me a boner of pure diamond). My thoughts go out to his family (that I will forget about as soon as I'm done reading off this speech that David Frum wrote for me). Yours in Bernake, da Prez."

[Aajj333]

Its Fox News mainly old rich white people listen to it who wont enherit the Earth.

[phuckphace]

Its Fox News mainly old rich white people listen to it who wont enherit the Earth.

lmao/rofl at your use of "white" like it's some devastating zinger. this post amuses fascists

[Sir Suomi]

there really isn't as much of a distinction as you think. a politician who gives a fake memorial speech and sheds crocodile tears over American deaths is a neocon traitor nevertheless. "today we come together to honor Pvt Jones' (completely unnecessary and avoidable) sacrifice (that I sent him into because I'm a neocon and it gives me a boner of pure diamond). My thoughts go out to his family (that I will forget about as soon as I'm done reading off this speech that David Frum wrote for me). Yours in Bernake, da Prez."

What
http://georgewbush-whitehouse.archives.gov/news/releases/2004/10/images/20041028_7-p43159-275jpg-515h.jpg
a
http://www4.pictures.gi.zimbio.com/Dedication+9+11+Pentagon+Memorial+OedVOshch8El.jpg
traitor
http://1.bp.blogspot.com/_of9ue2vob2g/SarWHuyaYCI/AAAAAAAAH84/b-uVN9Mct8k/s400/bush-troops1.jpg

At least he's served, and knows the consequences of his actions. Unlike our current president and that bitch Hillary.

[Harry Smith]

lol I believe the correct term for Hillary is Wench. That's a joke btw

George Bush is a joke, he used his Dads' friends on the Supreme Court to get him elected, then ignored the intelligence about 9/11-you mentioned the 4 US dead before what about the 3000 at 9/11. Bush spend 41% of his first year in office on holiday-that's great value for money. I don't even need to invoke Godwin

[Vlerchan]

At least he's served ...
Bush served as a member of the National Guard in a bid to avoid Vietnam.

... and knows the consequences of his actions.
phuckphace's point was the American leaders don't care if soldier's die whether they like to pretend to or not.

I'm not as cynical but I do agree that the wars are unnecessary and avoidable.

Unlike our current president and that bitch Hillary.
Obama cried when asked about Benghazi:

http://i.dailymail.co.uk/i/pix/2013/05/13/article-2323957-19C2F51A000005DC-824_634x444.jpg

Obama cares too:

http://www.golivewire.com/forums/img.cgi?i=91101
http://www.iranianuk.com/uk87/pic18/484874.jpg
http://images.jagran.com/Obamahugs-B-11-9-2011.jpg
http://1.bp.blogspot.com/-QIASqN4FIo4/T12JpZAEjKI/AAAAAAAAAPY/2MUXptzGQoc/s1600/large_Barack-Obama-GI-hug-Apr7-09.jpg

[Harry Smith]

The whole point about Romney is void anyway, I'm sure there were polls saying that Nixon could beat Kennedy in 1961 and ones that showed that Dole could beat Clinton during the impeachment.

People tend to forget how bland Romney was

[Chuck_M8]

lol I believe the correct term for Hillary is Wench. That's a joke btw

George Bush is a joke, he used his Dads' friends on the Supreme Court to get him elected, then ignored the intelligence about 9/11-you mentioned the 4 US dead before what about the 3000 at 9/11. Bush spend 41% of his first year in office on holiday-that's great value for money. I don't even need to invoke Godwin

Yeah, Bush was bad. Clinton and Obama each have 100 days of vacation, combined for 200.... Bush had 400 total days of vacation... Kind of ridiculous in perspective.

If you ask me, Presidents should have a limit on vacation days. They spend hundreds of millions of dollars in tax payer money each vacation that could easily be going to something beneficial.

[Gamma Male]

It'd be nice if Hillary decided not to run and we could get Biden instead. With the rift caused by the GOP/tea bagger conflict and the abundance of individual republican candidates each with their own cult followings the Democrats seem like the more likely party to win 2016.

[Harry Smith]

It'd be nice if Hillary decided not to run and we could get Biden instead. With the rift caused by the GOP/tea bagger conflict and the abundance of individual republican candidates each with their own cult followings the Democrats seem like the more likely party to win 2016.

The only two candiates who stand a chance for the Republicans are Christie and Bush. One of them closed down a bridge because of a petty rivalry and the other is a former son and brother of POTUS

[Vlerchan]

#Sanders2016 #ChangetThatMightActuallyHappen

---

It's going to be Clinton-Bush in 2016.

[Gamma Male]

The only two candiates who stand a chance for the Republicans are Christie and Bush. One of them closed down a bridge because of a petty rivalry and the other is a former son and brother of POTUS

#Sanders2016 #ChangetThatMightActuallyHappen

---

It's going to be Clinton-Bush in 2016.

A Bush getting elected again would just be like a twilight zone episode. I wonder if he would keep the "invade Iraq" bush family tradition going or switch things up and invade some other obscure third world country.

[Harry Smith]

A Bush getting elected again would just be like a twilight zone episode. I wonder if he would keep the "invade Iraq" bush family tradition going or switch things up and invade some other obscure third world country.

As bad as it is Jeb Bush is probably the best out of the three, that's not saying much though.

[Taryn98]

Hindsight is 20/20. Who caress about a theoretical rematch that won't and can't happen? All people can do is make sure they are informed about the issues that matter to them and make choices based on that in the future.
Living in the past solves nothing.

And for the people bashing Fox News, do you realize it's the highest rated news programs on TV? They have higher ratings than CNN, ABC and NBC. I'm not saying their point of view is right or wrong, or that they are not biased, all news programs have bias, but still a large portion of America watch Fox rather than the alternatives.

[Harry Smith]

but still a large portion of America watch Fox rather than the alternatives.

Popular support doesn't translate into validity, just because fox is popular doesn't mean that it's better than the competition

[CharlieHorse]

I'm sorry, but Fox News is just such a biased news source. Most are actually.

[Taryn98]

Popular support doesn't translate into validity, just because fox is popular doesn't mean that it's better than the competition

Agreed, but the same can be said about CNN and MSNBC. All 3 are very biased news sources, each with their own slant.

[Harry Smith]

Agreed, but the same can be said about CNN and MSNBC. All 3 are very biased news sources, each with their own slant.

I'll agree with that. Even though the 3 news companies seem to follow the similar line on major issues e.g Israel

[rtw1997]

George Bush is a joke, he used his Dads' friends on the Supreme Court to get him elected

False. He was the certified winner of the race, after numerous recounts, court decisions, and independent investigations. Even CBS News, the New York Times, and various other left-wing outlets said so.

...then ignored the intelligence about 9/11

Simply not true. There was no pre-9/11 intelligence that Bush could have acted upon to prevent the attacks. Anyone who has read the now-famous "Bin Ladin [sic] Determined To Strike in US" Presidential Daily Briefing (PDB) knows it contained no useful information. Yes, Bin Laden was determined to attack. We had known this for years, just without specific details.

The memo contained no information more recent than 1999, and the four statements in the PDB hinting at al Qaeda's future operations were these:

• "CIA and the FBI are investigating a call to our Embassy in UAE in May saying that a group of Bin Ladin supporters was in the U.S. planning attack with explosives."

The 9/11 attack did not involve explosives.

• "We have not been able to corroborate some of the more sensational threat reporting, such as that from a [redacted] service in 1998 saying that Bin Ladin wanted to hijack a U.S. aircraft to gain the re-lease of `Blind Shaykh' `Umar `adb at-Rahman and other U.S.- held extremists."

The 9/11 attack was not an attempt to ransom the Blind Sheik or any other Muslim terrorists, which would have required taking live hostages, not just killing a lot of people by crashing the planes.

• "FBI information since that time indicates patterns of suspicious activity in the country consistent with preparations for hijackings or other types of attacks, including recent surveillance of federal buildings in New York."

The 9/11 attack did not target any federal buildings in New York.

• "A clandestine source said in 1998 that a Bin Ladin cell in New York was recruiting Muslim-American youth for attacks."

None of the nineteen hijackers were youths recruited from a bin Laden cell in New York.

If the entire federal government had gone on Red Alert in response to the August 6 PDB, FBI agents would have been rousting suspected terrorists in Queens and looking for swarthy men in U-Haul trucks outside the federal courthouse in New York. In theory, they might also have instituted racial profiling at airport security, which would have prevented both the hostage-taking mentioned in the August PDB and the actual 9/11 attack. Of course, liberals won't let us do this after 9/11, so they most certainly wouldn't have let us do it before.

Granted, Bush’s critics apparently expected him to beam himself through space from Florida to New York and throw himself in front of the second building at the World Trade Center, so there's really no way to win with these people.

Bush spent 41% of his first year in office on holiday-that's great value for money

Misleading. The majority of this time was spent at his Crawford, TX ranch--the "Western White House"--where he conducted business as usual and carried out the duties of the Presidency. All of his advisers and key figures from the admin. would go with him--Karl Rove, Condi Rice, Don Rumsfeld, and, of course, Dick Cheney, among others. He even hosted foreign dignitaries at the ranch. This is vastly different than the vacations our current President is so fond of taking--whether to Martha's Vineyard, Aspen, or Hawaii.

[Gamma Male]

It's weird how all of a sudden there are so many more conservatives. They just came out of nowhere. :lol: At least Vlerchan got his wish.

[Harry Smith]

False. He was the certified winner of the race, after court decisions.


Yes-court decisions that his dad's friends blocked. If they didn't block the entire state wide recount there's a very high possibility that Gore would of won.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Bush_v._Gore.

New York Times is not left wing-it may appear so to die hard conservatives but the majority of 'left wing' people on this board would say that it's reactionary right wing tripe.

What you've done with the intel is smart I'll give you that-you've tried to pick out parts that were wrong to justify it. I can find evidence too

The US administration, CIA and FBI received multiple prior warnings from foreign governments and intelligence services, including France, Germany, the UK, Israel, Jordan, Afghanistan, Egypt, Morocco and Russia.[5][30] The warnings varied in their level of detail, but all stated that they believed an Al-Qaeda attack inside the United States was imminent. British Member of Parliament Michael Meacher cites these warnings, suggesting that some of them must have been deliberately ignored.[31] Some of these warnings include the following:

March 2001 – Italian intelligence warns of an al-Qaeda plot in the United States involving a massive strike involving aircraft, based on their wiretap of al-Qaeda cell in Milan.
July 2001 – Jordanian intelligence told US officials that al-Qaeda was planning an attack on American soil, and Egyptian intelligence warned the CIA that 20 al-Qaeda Jihadists were in the United States, and that four of them were receiving flight training.
August 2001 – The Israeli Mossad gives the CIA a list of 19 terrorists living in the US and say that they appear to be planning to carry out an attack in the near future.
August 2001 – The United Kingdom is warned three times of an imminent al-Qaeda attack in the United States, the third specifying multiple airplane hijackings. According to the Sunday Herald, the report is passed on to President Bush a short time later.
September 2001 – Egyptian intelligence warns American officials that al-Qaeda is in the advanced stages of executing a significant operation against an American target, probably within the US.

[Vlerchan]

All 3 are very biased news sources, each with their own slant.
Fox News viewers are statistically speaking the most misinformed:

1. Iraq War. (http://www.pipa.org/OnlineReports/Iraq/IraqMedia_Oct03/IraqMedia_Oct03_rpt.pdf) In 2003, a survey by the Program on International Policy Attitudes (PIPA) at the University of Maryland found widespread public misperceptions about the Iraq war. For instance, many Americans believed that Saddam Hussein’s Iraq had been involved in 9/11, or that it possessed weapons of mass destruction prior to the U.S. invasion. But not everyone was equally misinformed: “The extent of Americans’ misperceptions vary significantly depending on their source of news,” PIPA reported. “Those who receive most of their news from Fox News are more likely than average to have misperceptions.” For instance, 80 % of Fox viewers held at least one of three Iraq-related misperceptions, more than a variety of other types of news consumers, and especially NPR and PBS users.

2. Global Warming. (http://woods.stanford.edu/docs/surveys/Global-Warming-Fox-News.pdf) In a late 2010 survey, Stanford University’s Jon Krosnick found that “more exposure to Fox News was associated with more rejection of many mainstream scientists’ claims about global warming, with less trust in scientists, and with more belief that ameliorating global warming would hurt the U.S. economy.” Notably, there was a 25 percentage point gap between the most frequent Fox News watchers (60 %) and those who watch no Fox news (85 %) in whether they think global warming is “caused mostly by things people do or about equally by things people do and natural causes.”

3. Health Care. (http://www.kff.org/healthreform/upload/8148.pdf) Earlier this year, the Kaiser Family Foundation released a survey on U.S. misperceptions about health care reform. The survey asked 10 questions, and compared the “high scorers”–those that answered 7 or more correct–based on their media habits. The result was that “higher shares of those who report CNN (35 percent) or MSNBC (39 percent) as their primary news source [got] 7 or more right, compared to those who report mainly watching Fox News (25 percent).”

4. Ground Zero Mosque. (http://www.comm.ohio-state.edu/kgarrett/MediaMosqueRumors.pdf) In late 2010, two scholars at the Ohio State University studied public misperceptions about the so-called “Ground Zero Mosque”—and in particular, the prevalence of a series of rumors depicting those seeking to build the mosque as terrorist sympathizers, anti-American, and so on. The result? “People who use Fox News believe more of the rumors we asked about and they believe them more strongly than those who do not.” Respondents reporting a “low reliance” on Fox News believed .9 rumors on average (out of 4), but for those reporting a “high reliance” on Fox News, the number increased to 1.5 out of 4.

5. 2010 Election. (http://www.worldpublicopinion.org/pipa/pdf/dec10/Misinformation_Dec10_rpt.pdf) Late last year, the Program on International Policy Attitudes (PIPA) once again singled out Fox in a survey about misinformation during the 2010 election. Out of 11 false claims studied in the survey, PIPA found that “almost daily” Fox News viewers were “significantly more likely than those who never watched it” to believe 9 of them, including the misperception that “most scientists do not agree that climate change is occurring.”

[Vlerchan Note: I went and grabbed the sources for each claim the article makes]

http://www.desmogblog.com/fox-news-effect-few-references

Here's more:

Researchers at Fairleigh Dickinson University updated a study they had conducted in late 2011. That study only sampled respondents from New Jersey, where the university is located. This time, the researchers conducted a nationwide poll.

The poll asked questions about international news (Iran, Egypt, Syria and Greece were included) and domestic affairs (Republican primaries, Congress, unemployment and the Keystone XL pipeline.)

The pollsters found that people were usually able to answer 1.8 out of 4 questions on foreign news, and 1.6 of 5 questions on domestic news, and that people who don't watch any news were able to get 1.22 of the questions on domestic policy right.

[Quote From Study:] "The largest effect is that of Fox News: all else being equal, someone who watched only Fox News would be expected to answer just 1.04 domestic questions correctly -- a figure which is significantly worse than if they had reported watching no media at all. On the other hand, if they listened only to NPR, they would be expected to answer 1.51 questions correctly; viewers of Sunday morning talk shows fare similarly well. And people watching only "The Daily Show With Jon Stewart" could answer about 1.42 questions correctly."

http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2012/05/23/fox-news-less-informed-new-study_n_1538914.html

---

Adding to what Harry said: lots of people viewing a news source does not impact on how bad or good it is - especially considering that most people don't understand politics or economics to begin with and can't make a judgement about the value of the source.

[Sir Suomi]

cares[/i] too:



My point was that I believe our Presidents should be required to at least serve at least to some point in our military, before becoming our Commander-in-Chief.

[Vlerchan]

My point was that I believe our Presidents should be required to at least serve at least to some point in our military, before becoming our Commander-in-Chief.
Is the whole Commander-In-Chief-thing not supposed to just exist in order to preserve civilian control over the military? It's largely ceremonial?

I don't support this regardless though.

At least Vlerchan got his wish.
Just noticed this.

But yes, it's great. I forgot how fun pretending quantifiable differences between Democrats and Republicans existed was.

[Gamma Male]

My point was that I believe our Presidents should be required to at least serve at least to some point in our military, before becoming our Commander-in-Chief.

I'd hardly call what bush did "serving".

[rtw1997]

New York Times is not left wing-it may appear so to die hard conservatives but the majority of 'left wing' people on this board would say that it's reactionary right wing tripe.

The Times itself has admitted to being a liberal paper. In fact, their public editor, Daniel Orkent, even penned a column on the subject just a few years after the Florida fiasco. The headline reads "Is The New York Times a Liberal Newspaper?" and the first sentence of the piece is "Of course it is."

He goes on to write, "[M]y concern is the flammable stuff that ignites the right. These are the social issues: gay rights, gun control, abortion and environmental regulation, among others. And if you think The Times plays it down the middle on any of them, you've been reading the paper with your eyes closed."

http://www.nytimes.com/2004/07/25/opinion/the-public-editor-is-the-new-york-times-a-liberal-newspaper.html

[Vlerchan]

The Times itself has admitted to being a liberal paper.
In Europe liberal means 'right-wing' because liberalism is actually a right-wing ideology.

[rtw1997]

In Europe liberal means 'right-wing' because liberalism is actually a right-wing ideology.

Yes, however, I'm talking about an American newspaper and its handling of an American election.

[Ethe14]

In Europe liberal means 'right-wing' because liberalism is actually a right-wing ideology.

Yes your right about that but, this is America. In America liberalism is left wing. We are usually backwards about most things, including naming political ideology.

[Vlerchan]

Yes, however, I'm talking about an American newspaper and its handling of an American election.
It's right-wing. You only think it's 'left-wing' because the US is quite a conservative nation.

That was the point I was making.

---

Ethe14 is correct too.

[Sir Suomi]

Is the whole Commander-In-Chief-thing not supposed to just exist in order to preserve civilian control over the military? It's largely ceremonial?



No, the President has complete control over all of our Army, Navy, Marines, and Air Force, and shares control of National Guard units. So yeah, as the head of our whole entire military force, I believe you should have at least some military service before being eligible.

[Vlerchan]

No, the President has complete control over all of our Army, Navy, Marines, and Air Force, and shares control of National Guard units.
I looked more into it.

It seems to me like he 'technically' has this power but in reality it's his advisors and the higher-ranking military men (and woman) who run the show.

It doesn't seem like it's a job that requires much combat experience anyway.

[Harry Smith]

I believe you should have at least some military service before being eligible.

FDR didn't have any experience in the Army yet he lead America pretty well during WW2. I don't think it's fair to say you should have some military service because it's a different game.

JFK driving a boat around the Pacific didn't prepare him for National Security council meetings. It's foolish to assume that 3-4 of service is going to help you be commander in chief when in fact the job is 100% political.

I looked more into it.

It seems to me like he 'technically' has this power but in reality it's his advisors and the higher-ranking military men (and woman) who run the show.

It doesn't seem like it's a job that requires much combat experience anyway.

Pretty much the same as the Queen-she has authority over the Armed Forces but you don't see her commanding troops-neither does Cameron