Is Obama a Socialist?

[Kendal]

So you think how someone is raised has absolutely no bearing on how they turn out or what they believe in? He continues to live/think the way his parents did.

People are no doubt influenced by their upbringing but it can go either direction. Some people rebel and are the opposite of the parents, others follow in the footsteps. My point was we should discuss Obama's politics not the politics of the parents or what church his mom went to.

Angela Merkel - chancellor of Germany - was raised in communist East Germany and an active member of socialist political parties. By your logic with her socialiast background and leanings Germany should be in chaos but Germany is doing a lot better than USA.

Jack Straw - UK Home Secretary - is a socialist whose father was imprisoned as a consciencous objector in WW2. Yet Straw and his pal Tony Blair made UK the only power to join repulican Bush to invade Iraq and Afghanmistan. America had no problem with Tony or Jack's socialism.

You see it in such black and white terms. Anybody who wants fairer wealth redistribution is a socialist, a socialist is a communist and communie bastards are the enemy. I don't see it that way. In the UK the entire Labour party are socialist, Sweden has cradle to grave welfare programs and Canada, as Lion points out, has socialists policies. These countries are not in chaos and manage to tick over okay.

To address your question. No Obama is not a socialist. He would be laughed out of a socialist convention. He would be considered right wing in Europe. Yes he has been influenced by socialist thinking and the poverty and corruption he has undoubtely seen in Africa and Asia. Yes some of his policies and thoughts are closer to socialism than those of the Republicans but that does not make them socialist.

No, but he is the first President to completely ignore the majority.

Wow - you guys are lucky. In UK all our Prime Ministers ignore the majority. This is how it works. You get a majority vote by hook or by crook and then when you are in office you claim you have the mandate of the people and do whatever you want to do. Then fours years later the people vote you out or decide that maybe it was not so bad after all and at least you are the lesser of two evils and vote to keep you. That's politics in a two party system.

[DuncanONeil]

Steelish did not limit herself to Obama's parents. Nor even only those that raised him.
Although you are going to great lengths to include only those sources.
The vast majority of Obama's mentors, associates, confidants, advisers, and friends are members of the radical left. Unapologetic, at that, of the violence they did.
The totality, that you ignore, makes the conclusion of Obama being socialist appropriate. Add to that his blatant disregard of the will of the people means we need to see the end of an error Jan 20 2013.

Socialists are not communists. Just how do you propose to go about making a "fairer wealth redistribution". Any plan to do so is going to confiscate from those that produce in favor of those that do not. Yes that is concrete but you know full well what is meant.
Obama is not socialist, answered that already!

The lesser of two weevils are what got them into office. This is one of the only Presidential candidates that actually had was actually composed of no planks. His entire campaign was "change"! Each and every person heard that and believed that he was going to change their personal peeve. This campaign, that has yet to end, was the most egregious in promising everything to get the power to not govern but rule.
We tossed King George! We will toss King Obama - and his nobles & barons!

People are no doubt influenced by their upbringing but it can go either direction. Some people rebel and are the opposite of the parents, others follow in the footsteps. My point was we should discuss Obama's politics not the politics of the parents or what church his mom went to.

Angela Merkel - chancellor of Germany - was raised in communist East Germany and an active member of socialist political parties. By your logic with her socialiast background and leanings Germany should be in chaos but Germany is doing a lot better than USA.

Jack Straw - UK Home Secretary - is a socialist whose father was imprisoned as a consciencous objector in WW2. Yet Straw and his pal Tony Blair made UK the only power to join repulican Bush to invade Iraq and Afghanmistan. America had no problem with Tony or Jack's socialism.

You see it in such black and white terms. Anybody who wants fairer wealth redistribution is a socialist, a socialist is a communist and communie bastards are the enemy. I don't see it that way. In the UK the entire Labour party are socialist, Sweden has cradle to grave welfare programs and Canada, as Lion points out, has socialists policies. These countries are not in chaos and manage to tick over okay.

To address your question. No Obama is not a socialist. He would be laughed out of a socialist convention. He would be considered right wing in Europe. Yes he has been influenced by socialist thinking and the poverty and corruption he has undoubtely seen in Africa and Asia. Yes some of his policies and thoughts are closer to socialism than those of the Republicans but that does not make them socialist.

Wow - you guys are lucky. In UK all our Prime Ministers ignore the majority. This is how it works. You get a majority vote by hook or by crook and then when you are in office you claim you have the mandate of the people and do whatever you want to do. Then fours years later the people vote you out or decide that maybe it was not so bad after all and at least you are the lesser of two evils and vote to keep you. That's politics in a two party system.

[steelish]

Wow - you guys are lucky. In UK all our Prime Ministers ignore the majority. This is how it works. You get a majority vote by hook or by crook and then when you are in office you claim you have the mandate of the people and do whatever you want to do. Then fours years later the people vote you out or decide that maybe it was not so bad after all and at least you are the lesser of two evils and vote to keep you. That's politics in a two party system.

That is NOT how this country was designed nor intended. That might be politics in YOUR two party system, but not in ours.

In our system there IS supposed to be transparency. There IS supposed to be representation. Our representatives and senators are supposed to find out what the majority in their districts want, then go to Washington and represent them. The President is supposed to listen to what the senators and representatives say, and act accordingly. That obviously is not happening now. We have senators and reps "getting in bed" with the President's agenda, and damned to the people!

[tedteague]

That is NOT how this country was designed nor intended. That might be politics in YOUR two party system, but not in ours.

In our system there IS supposed to be transparency. There IS supposed to be representation. Our representatives and senators are supposed to find out what the majority in their districts want, then go to Washington and represent them. The President is supposed to listen to what the senators and representatives say, and act accordingly. That obviously is not happening now. We have senators and reps "getting in bed" with the President's agenda, and damned to the people!

Its the peoples responsibility to vote on senators and reps. If Congress has 20% approval rating, and a 90+% re-election rate, thats nobodys fault but the voters

[Canyon]

Its the peoples responsibility to vote on senators and reps. If Congress has 20% approval rating, and a 90+% re-election rate, thats nobodys fault but the voters

Hard to argue. Incumbents rig it for themselves of course. Amending their remarks to sound better than they did on the debate floor, voting present, so they do not have to earn their pay and make a decision (or not be identified by a voting history for what they are), like they were elected to. Managing to sound as conservative, and reasonable as possible on the re-election trail, pretending that they are trustworthy. If we are fooled, its our own fault.

The only thing that matters to me about an incumbent, or someone with past political office running for another, is his history, not his speeches and promises. Even if he changes positions, to get my vote, he has to show me why (I do allow people to grow and change. but if they want my vote, then they can tell me why.), and have time before the election to actually attempt to implement his new view (example: if you go from pro choice to pro life, propose or vote for something pro life). Any thing less than that and I suspect its one of those flip-flops often used to get a vote, prior to the inevitable flop-flip back after the election.

[DuncanONeil]

Don't forget those that vote both sides of an issue!
Example;

• Congress passed a measure to build a fence on the southern border, I believe by a large margin.
• Yet when it came time to vote the funds to build the fence it failed!

What are the chances that those that voted for the fence and against the money used those votes to gain support from differing groups of people?

Hard to argue. Incumbents rig it for themselves of course. Amending their remarks to sound better than they did on the debate floor, voting present, so they do not have to earn their pay and make a decision (or not be identified by a voting history for what they are), like they were elected to. Managing to sound as conservative, and reasonable as possible on the re-election trail, pretending that they are trustworthy. If we are fooled, its our own fault.

The only thing that matters to me about an incumbent, or someone with past political office running for another, is his history, not his speeches and promises. Even if he changes positions, to get my vote, he has to show me why (I do allow people to grow and change. but if they want my vote, then they can tell me why.), and have time before the election to actually attempt to implement his new view (example: if you go from pro choice to pro life, propose or vote for something pro life). Any thing less than that and I suspect its one of those flip-flops often used to get a vote, prior to the inevitable flop-flip back after the election.

[steelish]

Its the peoples responsibility to vote on senators and reps. If Congress has 20% approval rating, and a 90+% re-election rate, thats nobodys fault but the voters

You're absolutely right. That's why it's also our responsibility to regain control (as concerned American citizens "regaining" our Republic). We've sat idle too long, trusting in our elected officials, believing that the "greater good" would prevail. Well, we've learned such is not the case.

[DuncanONeil]

Its the peoples responsibility to vote on senators and reps. If Congress has 20% approval rating, and a 90+% re-election rate, thats nobodys fault but the voters

Agreed! But that does not absolve those in Congress of responsibility to honor their oath of office!