It is so much more complicated than those views express, even though they are interesting to read the impressions of those folks.
Both parties have aligned themselves with the most extreme viewpoints of their side. I could bash Republicans for a good page, but the Democrats are equally extreme. Neither side does a good job of representing real Americans at all. You don't get on TV as a talking head for either side without being a crack pot. Both sides are pushing very polarizing talking points that the majority of Americans have very moderate opinions on. We are not a great nation because of either party, but in spite of them both.
Kamber Park said, "Obama's pretty much squandered four years in not being able to "reach across the aisle" and get things done in the manner of Clinton."
You don't remember the government shutdown, the white water investigation, and then the impeachment hearings? I don't think they worked too well together under Clinton, either.
Any Senator can simply place a "Hold" on a bill that can block it from going forward indefinitely. They don't even have to give a reason or associate their name with the Hold. Both sides use this tactic, but President Obama's term has to be a record for the number of times this was used.
"Mr Romney said in his address to a rally in Des Moines, Iowa: "The only thing that stands between us and some of the best years we can imagine is a lack of leadership - and that's why we have elections."
"During a 1983 family vacation, Mitt Romney drove twelve hours with his dog Seamus on top of the car in a windshield-equipped carrier....During the 650-mile (1,050 km) trip, Seamus had bout of diarrhea. Romney stopped at a gas station to wash the dog, the carrier and the car. With Seamus back in the carrier, the family continued on their way.
This incident became the subject of negative media attention and political attacks on Romney in both the 2008 and the 2012 presidential elections."
ha ha ha ha ha ha sorry, but this makes the whole of america look like a dick.
Heres Mark Mardell on the 2 Americas that will vote tomorrow
Originally Posted by mark mardell, bbc
Last edited by Velocity Kendall; November 5th, 2012 at 04:09 PM.
Well someone above mentioned putting a hold on legislature. Hence why one of my first posts was sort of an 'it doesn't matter' shaking my head type thing.
Since congress is a joke right now. Probably because there are some big changes like once again steps towards healthcare changes and other things on the table.
So the people just filibuster the fuck out of anything they don't like refuse to discuss anything and leave it at that. Record breaking numbers. To the point where we're actually discussing changes and reform in the ability to filibuster. Who cares if you hold a majority when you still can't pass anything if it's not 'enough' of a majority.
And to Velocity above, that's American politics. Use the stupidest shit to attack your opponent. I still remember the 'birthing' issues where people wanted Obama's birth certificate. Then when he released it you had all sorts of "experts" online claiming it was fake. That was a laugh riot. "I know this was photoshopped, I used to work in a shop". The main reason I even watch something like the Daily Show that John Stewart has is because that shit only exists to point out inconsistencies and ridiculous bullshit in the actual news and such.
Obama's never faced a special prosecutor, an impeachment trial by Congress, an angry fat chick with a DNA stained blue dress, or Hillary throwing lamps and dishes at him--
but he still hasn't managed to be as effective as Clinton at working with the Legislature!
Your Mardell column shows how far afield the Democrats have gone.
They used to be the party of "the little guy"-- the blue collar worker-- odd that you Brits now see the Republicans as the party of the common man!
". . . strength is made up of an alliance too, overwhelmingly white, the well-off, evangelical Christians and much of what used to be the working class, the rural, the blue collar and the deep south."
Back in the 60s, THAT would have described the Democrats to a "T!"
What happens? That's what undercuts it all for me. If I vote for ideas that I may or may not understand I can't enforce those ideas if they change during the presidency or the next... there is no bargain here, no way to ensure you get what you've been forced to pay for in currency that doesn't exist.
There seems to be some opportunity in any system. For example communitarian people are looked down on in that quote above, but these dumb gun toting farmer types should be distinguished from topics that could be addressed more immediately at how we farm and the infrastructure set up for farming. I live in a rural area in the US and it seems like there is plenty of room to farm and possibly feed everyone in the county and city and state, however government subsidies pay to grow 1/3 of corn for ethanol and to not grow at other times at least that's what I've heard and I only ever see corn here in rural Baltimore county).
That is a loss of opportunity to feed people. Infrastructure of farms could be used to develop certain areas of Baltimore city and to increase the amount of fresh produce that there seems to be a growing lack of in grocery stores. The irony of this is that a lot of farmers markets are in the city! The quality of food is much better at places like Atwaters in Baltimore city ( which doubles as a farmers market) than out where I live. It's amazing what people who live out here,near farms, consider good restaurant food. Things like bad smelling shrimp salad sandwiches and things that are gelatinous. So if there were actual communities in the way they are thought of in the Andy Grifith show where small business can serve more local populations (in spite of Walmart) wouldn't there be generally less distance to travel between survival resources and your home? This could put an ease on population density improving school function among other things, increase the demand for new and improved infrastructure, Spread smaller farms to more local areas to ease the stress of the soils that are constantly farmed etc.
I may be wrong about those things because I'm uninformed or for some reason beyond my comprehension unbeknownst to me, but when I see Obama endorsing a fellow Running for Govenor in my state who only runs an add supporting a proposition to Use Casino profits for School System improvement I can't help but think that there are still large disconnects in ideaology and that American Government and governments around the world are numb to creating anything of value for me.
So I'm not going to vote tomorrow.
I'm looking forward to the post election suits though.
Here it goes.
As an informal poll, who did (or would) you vote for?
yo check this out
I'd like to be able to vote for ideas and not the people that carry them and furthermore to be able to vote on whether or not the ideas/ goals/ propositions/suppositions are being fulfilled in a way that I agree with once a week. If people are going to vote they should experience some dedication. It's almost as if, for a day, everyone gets to be a public servant and complain the rest of the time. Why not adjust the ratio of how long you have to complain to how often you vote to be a little more balanced. Look at how much money is spent in a campaign and then tell me that money wouldn't be flowing a lot more in frequency. It would make lobbyists less detrimental wouldn't it?
"but he still hasn't managed to be as effective as Clinton at working with the Legislature!"
Effective how, exactly? In creating the surplus? Or in repealing Glass-Steagall? I don't see what they did that was so great. It seems to me that Republicans in Congress were simply more deadset against Obama as a political strategy, especially after the 2010 Tea Party upset. Everyone's saying the mood in Congress has never been so divided. To what extent is this Obama's fault? I mean, he seems like a pretty reasonable, likable guy to me. Mitch McConnell, not so much.
Last edited by TASmith; November 6th, 2012 at 02:39 PM. Reason: added an argument
I think there should a full investigation on the election after Obama gets back in and some people should be spending a lot of time behind bars. Also they should go back to paper (like dpaint) nationally and have another nation, like the UK, audit the votes.
Good luck US
From Gegarin's point of view
Johnston has recorded himself demonstrating how a logic analyzer, an Allen wrench and a screwdriver is all it takes to change votes to register for one candidate instead of another by using a man-in-the-middle attack. Although it hasn’t been verified yet, a video posted to YouTube early on November 6 from an account registered to “Centralpavote” shows what is reported to be a similar machine showing signs typical of exactly that kind of abuse —not in a test setting, though, but only hours before the polls close for real [VIDEO].UPDATE: The machine in question was removed from the polling center in Pennsylvania where it was initially installed for use on Tuesday, NBC News confirms, after the video was recorded and uploaded to the Web.Apparently this was on exactly one machine that was removed. Interesting that the person who filmed this video said a vote for Jill Stein registered correctly (3rd on ballot). I assume one for Gary Johnson would have as well. Sounds pessimistic but we always have something like this, it is usually proven after the fact to make a negligible difference thankfully.I asked the voters on either side of me if they had any problems and they reported they did not. I then called over a volunteer to have a look at it. She him hawed for a bit then calmly said "It's nothing to worry about, everything will be OK." and went back to what she was doing. I then recorded this video.
Yes, I registered to vote last July, when I was back in the states.
If you want a real intellectual exercise, here's a good article to start from: http://www.foreignpolicy.com/article...avoid?page=0,1
It lists some of the challenges the US president will face. So let's compare Romney to Obama. I'm posting my inexpert opinions for public scrutiny.
1. On Iran getting the bomb: The extent of my knowledge about Iran includes reading everything by Marjane Satrapi, and reading a couple New Yorker articles. AndI know about the embassy hostages under Carter. I'm not so comfortable with a Nuclear Iran, and the article describes a new arms race among Arab states. I hadn't even thought of that. The chances of nuclear material getting into terrorist hands would be even greater, and God knows what they'd do with it. I could concievably support a strike on Iranian nuclear facilities, but I worry about the political fallout, and it could very well be ineffectual. I think Romney would be more likely to do this, and not overthink things. I'd prefer to see a general disarmament agreement internationally, so countries wouldn't feel the need to build new bombs. But that's never gonna happen, is it?
2. Middle East Tension - for all Romney's bluff, I don't see him acting much different from Obama. The official US policy on the arab spring is to sit on the fence and wring our hands. We support the fight for democracy, just not the ultra-conservative, anti-american feelings that result from it. It'd be great to see an international peacekeeping force in Syria. I'd support that, but when and how would it happen? I don't see Romney waving any magic wands there.
3. Africa, the New Middle East - I don't see any shift in policy there, except, possibly less aid going to African countries under Romney. He wants smaller govt, after all.
4. Another 9/11 - there's no way to predict the likelyhood of these things, and I think both candidates would repeat similar mantras of our post-9/11 world. Romney would be more likely to implement new Patriot Act type shtuff.
5. Trade War with China - I know jack shit about this issue. My gut feeling is both Romney and Obama would do the same things. I'd like to hear someone knowledgeable talk more about this.
6. Recession - I'm hoping we're through with the worst of the recession, but I know nothing of our current economics. It'd be interesting to hear if Obama's new regulations will have any effect on the system, and if it's fundamentally any healthier, or still just as FUBAR as it was last decade. How are credit default swaps doing lately? On this issue, I don't see Romney differing much from Obama. If America needs another stimulus, Romney will do it, despite whatever he says now. If the banks need a bailout, you know Romney will do it. He'll give twice what they need. So far as raising taxes and cutting spending, Obama's the better bet. Romney's promise of cutting taxes and it being "revenue neutral" is just a pathetic attempt at hooking the votes of young, uneducated conservatives who repeat what they hear - the kinds of kids I went to highschool with. I don't understand how anyone else could swallow that turd. I don't even think Romney seriously wants to cut taxes. I mean, sure, he'd like to, but what he really wants is to get elected, period. And stay in office. His being in office is more important to him than any single policy he might enact.
7. Repeating Japan's Stagnation - honestly, is Japan so bad? I worry any time I hear about the necessity of continued, never-ending economic growth. It sounds eerily like cancer.
8. European Recession - like it makes a difference who the US president is.
9. Global Warming and Super Storms - It seems from all the experts that global warming is real, and I accept that. Blaming every big storm on global warming is a bit shakier, although hurricane trends seem at least somewhat related, at least according to Al Gore. Obama has spent some cash on green energy, but I don't see it as being all that big a commitment. Romney will probably also spend some money on it, despite his teasing Obama. I'm sure it'll make more sense to him once he's in office. But neither of them will do anything to seriously combat carbon emissions. Our environment's out of luck either way.
10. Global financial meltdown - I thought we covered this? At any rate, neither candidate seems positioned to create effective regulation, and I don't see how any agency anywhere could regulate the world financial market. No country would accept that kind of interference with their system.
11. Social unrest - I agree it's a longshot, but I see it as more likely under Romney.
12. Cyber Warfare - the warning is not to over-use it, because it would provoke retaliation. I see Obama as generally more cautious in this regard, but I think both candidates would engage in it if encouraged by staff, and I don't see retaliation as directly proportional to our use. I think our enemies have a whole host of reasons to engage in any and all forms of terrorism against the US, and what we do via computer would play only a small part of it.
Okay, peeps, read the article, post your opinions. And, how much of this effects your vote, anyway? My vote for Obama has to do with 1. I like the guy, and 2. Romney doesn't give a damn about America. So far as I can tell, he just wants the office to further his career, scratching the backs of his business partners so he can secure great jobs for himself and family after leaving the white house. That's just the vibe I get.
I'll take a crack at it.
1. On Iran getting the bomb:
Such a tough issue. I think it is time we acknowledged that the CIA with the knowledge of Presidents Truman and Eisenhower created this entire mess in the early 50s ... WITH the help of and in collusion with the UK. This was purely motivated by controlling oil. In short the US and UK overthrew a democratically elected leader in a coup which stirred up deep resentment of the west in the region and came back to bite us in the butt in the mid-70s when the Ayatollah took over. You can read all about Operation Boot to get the gist. Then we repeat the same thing more or less in Iraq to put a party (Ba'ath) in power that we find more favorable when things don't work out for us in Iran. Well gee, that didn't work out so great either.
All of the crap over there, all of the anti-Western sentiment is blowback from meddling and playing a sort of game of thrones in the 50s to the present. What should we do with Iran? Well we can waste all of our money on a unilateral war based on vague threats to finish the job like we did with Iraq or we can monitor them closely while making serious attempts at an apology and diplomacy and just leave them alone.
Obama is less likely to listen to the War mongers, more likely to take action if he does though. Romney has already stated he is going to be a dumbass on this issue.
2. Middle East Tension
It's their thing, they don't want need or care about our support. The U.S. and our Allies should get the hell out and stay out. Let them work it out for themselves. We should watch carefully from a distance and not offer anything, even a visit unless it is asked for. The reason they hate the West and America in particular is as obvious as could be and only getting worse as we have become a symbolic enemy for the people to unite against.
Obama has already shown he doesn't understand this with Lybia. Romney would be same/worse.
Let charity organizations handle the poor. Millions of people have been donating for decades to organizations that are there to help. Those countries are corrupt throughout, our government dumping money into nation building over there is just throwing our money away. It is not our job to reform every bad government on the planet by force.
Romney, although his exact reasons for handling it the right way may be questionable.
4. Another 9/11
Impossible to know. More policies and campaigns to force our will in the region is unlikely to bring safety though.
5. Trade War with China
US-China relations are the best they have been in a very very very long time. We have gone from fearing them as a super power communist threat to having excellent trade relationships with them. They are probably our best best in getting North Korea to soften and join the free world. We owe them a whole lot of money too.
I think this is hyperbole to pander to voters who lost their jobs when American companies moved their operations to China. Who's fault is that? We went through this with the Japanese in the late 70s/early 80s. Americans want to be paid very well for doing simple jobs in a barely adequate way and want maximum benefits and perks on top of it. Americans obviously need to be paid a living wage and have jobs in the first place.
Let's take it a bit further because this isn't talked about enough. The secret weapon in the U.S. is the HB-1 visa. Look at the top end of all sciences and engineering PhD programs at universities. Look at who has those jobs at our technology companies. The majority are foreign born, primarily Chinese and Indian. You could make a good case that the majority of Americans will be working for Chinese and Indian companies before the middle of this century.
Romney, he probably understands this point better than most in D.C.
Caused by very risky securities trading practices and the Federal Reserve printing money whenever we run out. This will fix itself on the next boom which will probably happen in the next 5 years. Our economy is very cyclical, the guys who are getting very rich know and understand this and are playing it to a tee.
9. Global Warming and Super Storms
Let's assume for argument's sake that we have stone cold hard proof that we created the super storms and are destroying the planet, which we basically do. How serious do you think we'll have to be to counter act a century of an industrialized planet spewing crap into the air?
Sorry but it will take more than recycling cans and bringing your own bag to the grocery store. Any effort that will matter will have to be drastic, expensive, mandatory etc.
Then again, when I was a little kid they taught us that the earth was cooling off because of our nasty habits. The people who are unsure aren't crazy.
11. Social unrest
Mostly caused by ignoring our problems at home to go meddle in someone else's affairs overseas. Who is POTUS won't matter unless their policy is completely the opposite with the support of the house and senate.
12. Cyber Warfare
Our government has a learning disability.
Last edited by Kolbenito; November 6th, 2012 at 05:32 PM.
Like I've said before my reasoning is simple albeit there is more complicated reasoning as well, but fuck getting into all that. Romney has no official stance on anything. It changes to suit his political career. Gay marriage being wrong is a hot topic issue now with voters I'm going to say I'm against it. Gay marriage is right with voters here I'm all for it. It's the same with every single issue. I already posted a video 20 minutes long of flip flops. There's probably plenty more out there. So I can't even answer those questions because Romney has no stance.
Then the 2nd reason is once again Bain and I can see him as never being for small business and never on giving tax hikes or closing loopholes to people in his class.
I still can't find the right clip I wanted, all of them have people commenting on it and crap. But this is close to that as I can find. skip to 0:53. Then there's another video where he's interviewed by 60 minutes and says it's fair that he only has to pay 14% tax rates.
Then one of the multiple times he refuses to name even a single loophole he'll close
You can't be for the middleclass while still supporting this bullshit for the elite.
Well he isn't unique or special in that regard. John Huntsman called him a "well oiled weathervane" which is pretty accurate. I don't think you could fill up a family sedan with career politicians who have never once changed their message based on polls and popular opinion to get elected. Romney's flaw is that he is just really obvious about it and has been on TV too much lol. We'll get some great comedy out of him as POTUS if elected.
Well there's a track record. Some change their stance on a few issues and if it's over a decent length of time. Ok I can get that. Romney has literally changed his stance on every issue.... .... multiple times... ...... fairly recently.........
I remember the final debate they had he mirrored every one of Obama's foreign policies. It was nuts. It's the same with all issues even those dealing with things Obama did. "I'm completely against the auto bailouts Obama did. Oh wait, no I'd have done the same thing". Which is it? Did the president fuck up or not? No one knows because you don't have a solid viewpoint.
Last edited by JFierce; November 6th, 2012 at 06:32 PM.
I'm no Romney fan, but I'm of the school of thought that Obama squandered his political capital on Obamacare at a time when both the economy was a more important issue and when he had a more allied/sympathetic Congress.
Otherwise, I don't think the election would be the razor thin coin-toss that it's shaking out to be!
[Last I heard, shortly before writing this, Florida was at a dead-heat of 50/50 between the candidates! Pretty exciting horse race at this time. The punditocracy-- on both the Right and Left-- pretty much acknowledge that Romney has to win Florida's Electoral Votes, or it's over for him.]
I'm not even looking at the race for a good while. I prefer waiting until near the end rather than getting jittery over early-mid race results.
Last edited by JFierce; November 6th, 2012 at 10:12 PM.