I never really took it into account before, but it just hit me a while ago and I was wondering did anyone else notice or remember when Obama was touring the world during his first Presidential campaign? Then it struck me as very odd how a Presidential candidate is touring the world. He was giving speeches in Germany and other parts of Europe. At that time it seemed charming and exciting because he was so popular, but now it seems very odd and somehow out-of-place. It could be chalked up to initiative, innovation, or a bright campaign move, but... It seems like Obama was already president at that time. And when I back track, I realize just how comical and unreal these Presidential campaigns have been, recently. The idiot Bush, then the idiot Palin, combined with an entire stock of idiotic and weird Republican nominees... This is not to insult Republican's, but, rather, to ask a question. It seems like the bi-party elections is being rigged by- in a way- forcing the vote. By placing idiots and kook's on the ballot, most people who are not just hard-core Republican choose to stand with the sane choice or simply become disillusioned or run out of stamina and don't put up a fight at all. And when I say idiots, I don't mean that they are idiots, but they are acting like that, doing impossibly dumb things for people elected into office. These people are not stupid and the things they do and say and are "caught" doing on tape strike me as something so unrealistic and improbable that it had to have been staged or scripted. It seems like the Republican side of the competition has dropped it's guard and thrown the fight intentionally. Like they are purposefully- at the top- acting like the snobby bad-guys and unrealistic fools in order to get people to vote for Obama. In this sense, it shouldn't really even matter since it would imply cooperation of two different groups of a singular purpose, but...nonetheless...it seems valid. Romney became a "solid Republican choice simply out of the necessity to have a Republican running against a Democrat", but do you remember this... [video=youtube;lFUUDrh9wNg]http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=lFUUDrh9wNg&feature=g-hist[/video] That's the Republican hope when he was the Republican joke. All of them were, and it seems like he was chosen because he was the most sane and goodly among them, but he wasn't. He was, apparently, at least, just as kooky, weird, and unreliable as the rest of them. Politics seems like a seesaw where one party is allowed to reign until their image grows tired and then a new party is put in. But each party does the same things. You always hear it, when the candidate who wins office begins to make concessions to and endorses the opinions and policies he once was so adamant against. I wanted to know if anyone thought the same or thinks any of this is a valid concern or guess?
