The force field surrounding the U.S. is strong, but can be breached. PM me and I’ll recommend some weak points where you’re most likely to escape.
We also saw executive power grow during those 8 years while the Republican constituency did nothing to stop it. The question of the proper division of power between the legislative and executive branches (as distinct from the division of power between federal and state governments, or between government as such and the private sector as such, etc.) is one that cuts across both party lines and ideological lines, it always has. Generally the party that holds the WH at the moment wants a strong executive now and changes position when it’s out.
No. The democrats do nothing to stop the growth of executive power no matter who is president. They seek to strengthen the executive branch when in power and do nothing when a president like GWB grabs power. This is because they idolize Wilson and TR. They believe in a strong executive on ideological grounds while conservative Republicans oppose a strong executive on ideological grounds. The neocons are wilsonians (who like tax breaks) in moderate Republican clothing. The Republicans of today are not the Republicans of the GWB era.
Wait, what? The Republicans of the GWB era were neocons, or predominated/led by such. How are the Pubs of today any different from those of just four years ago?! Not because of the Tea Party, if that’s what you’re thinking; the question of executive vs. legislature as such appears nowhere on their signs, nowhere in their rhetoric, and appears to be largely beyond their comprehension anyway.
You aren’t listening closely enough then
I’m listening closely enough to know that the Tea Party is not a civil-liberties movement, nor a reign-in-the-WH movement. It is not even a small-government or states’-rights movement, even though that is on the signs they carry. “Taxed Enough Already” is bullshit, that’s not what they’re about. The Tea Party is a social/cultural-conservative movement first and foremost. It is not even a Pat-Buchanan-style paleocon movement: I don’t often hear Tea Partiers demanding we scale back the Defense Department, shut down our military bases around the world, or close Gitmo. I don’t even hear them talking about immigration, for some reason, nor about economic globalization vs. autarchy. Nor do I ever hear the Tea Partiers bashing Wall Street, which is at least as essential to the paleocon message as bashing Washington.
Might I inquire as to how this is done ? Given the weakness in the job and housing market in much of the US, I do not see much mobility amongst the population.
A lot more intra-country mobility than emigration, wouldn’t you say?
I’d be hesitant to uncritically accept that premise. Could you strengthen it some by actually answering the question DrumBum asked?
You might persuade me that intra-country mobility is significantly more feasible than emigration.
You probably won’t persuade me that fleeing the country is a particularly good idea, however easy or difficult it is.
although there’s a strong argument to be made that a Romney win would make it worthwhile. 
Sure. Same culture, same language, same currency, same customs, same documentation for education/citizenship/residency for intra-country mobility. Vs. different culture/language etc etc etc. for emigration. An that’s apart from the restrictions in immigration in various countries that need to be overcome.
If you want numbers, here are some for intra-country mobility: http://www.census.gov/hhes/migration/files/cps/cps2011/tab01-01.xls
I am sure you will agree that the table shows much higher mobility numbers intra-country than emigration.
Not intending to. It’s for everyone to decide for themselves. I have certain criteria that, when reached, will force me to leave the US. I have made preparations and am making more for it.
You’ve got me curious. What are your criteria? Are they in danger of being met?
I’d rather keep them private. And sure, I can see them being met within 5-10 years.
One place I am considering is New Zealand. And when asked why, I ask who the prime minister is over there. When people answer “I have no idea”, I say “Neither do I. That’s why”.
Gawrsh, now I’m more upbeat about the nation’s future. What could drive you away- implement single-payer health care? National gay marriage rights?
As much as I hate to burst your bubble, the Kiwis know who their PM is. And they have parties and elections and all. Maybe they go your way, maybe they don’t. Seems to me that unless you move to a one-party state, politics is going to be part of your life.
Kiwis do but I don’t have to and don’t intend to. And if I find NZ to be disagreeable, I have a couple of other countries to go to.
To be clear up front, I have strong libertarian leanings and tend to believe in the idea of voting for whom I believe is best, even if his chances of winning are virtually zero, rather than voting for the lesser of two evils. So I will almost certainly not be voting for either Obama or Romney in November and will be researching all the candidates on my state’s ballot.
That said, taken on an individual basis independent of the congressional elections, I’d say Obama will probably be better for a couple of reasons. For one, he’s at least the devil I know and while he has done things I disagree with, the worst things he’s done really aren’t all that bad, at least relative to the current political culture. Also because it’s his second term, he’ll be less hampered by popular opinion and more inclined to do things he really believes in. Even if I disagree with those, I’d rather someone lead us by conviction and honestly disagree than do what will keep his party behind him and whichever way the political wind blows.
For Romney, I’m just not sure. So far in his campaign, he’s just be a windsock, going fairly religiously conservative in the primary and going more centrist (but not too far) in the general so far. I just can’t be too sure exactly what he’ll do. Will he go in and be a puppet for the Republican base? Will he try to follow general Republican ideas to maintain party support? Will he go with a more general pole? Maybe he’ll do what he actually believes, whatever that is. Even the best case scenario for where I see him ending up isn’t all that much better than how I see Obama, and though I think he’ll likely be reasonably close to Obama in how much I agree or disagree, likely a bit closer on more things than not, there’s still that uncertainty, which accounts for a lot. The thing is, I just really don’t get a strong sense for where his convictions really are, so I’m more uncertain about him than most other candidates.
When I take into account the rest of the political climate, I’m even a little more uncertain. I don’t like the idea of one political party having both houses and the presidency because I think it could lead to either party getting some of their pet ideas through that probably shouldn’t. Although, now with the sort of filibuster environment we have, that may not be so much a problem anyway.
Don’t take this as a plea for you to change your mind, but what’s stopping you from staying here and not paying attention to who your elected officials are? Quite a number of people live their lives that way and manage just fine. Just turn off your TV, close your mind the rest of the way, and enjoy the sweet, sweet silence.
I am disappointed with President Obama, but I share his policy goals. Mitt Romney wants to skew things as much as possible in favor of the rich. I am opposed to that. Romney complains about high unemployment and the deficit, while advocating tax cuts. Those will not reduce unemployment. They will increase the national debt.
So, Obama should be reelected.
I care about the US. When it gets screwed up, it is sad to watch. I don’t care as much (or at all, really) about most other countries.
Terr, what is your position with regard to same-sex marriage? The rights of women? Race? Are these issues that should be at the whim of local governments or do you believe the Federal Government has a responsibility here?