|
On January 04 2012 23:58 cameler wrote:
Well I am from Canada, and it is interesting how the most mild mannered, least opinionated candidate won in Iowa. This is reflective of the mindset of Republicans in the US, they all think like Rick Santorum, but they know their party can not win with an extremist at the helm.
So they will probably elect mr. corporate interests with a kind smile, Mitt Romney.
Personally, I would LOVE to see Ron Paul win the presidential election because of his no non sense approach to the questions people ask him.
RON PAUL HAS A STAND. He has an OPINION. And he is not afraid to say it!
I disagree with that depiction of Santorum. He's not a mild-mannered, least opinionated candidate, he just attracts voters (evangelicals) that only care about a couple of issues (gays, abortions and turning the 10 commandmends into the law of the land). When it comes to those issues, he's a fundamentalist, much more so then the other candidates.
If he does decently in the primaries and doesn't beat up too much on Mitt, he might have a good shot at a VP spot under Romney. Appease the base, make sure they turn up and all that.
|
Anyone else think that santorum stole iowa from Paul and gave it to romney?
|
Personally, I think Santorum being so high up in Iowa will mean good things for Paul in NH. It just shows that Romney support isn't as strong as people think, and Santorum isn't going to do shit in NH because its significantly more "liberal" than Iowa, and he's definitely not liberal. Also, Gingrich and Perry have over $9mil in negative ads set to go against Romney over the next week, while Paul will be mostly be ignored. Translates into good things for RP.
|
On January 05 2012 00:06 Derez wrote:Show nested quote +On January 04 2012 23:58 cameler wrote:
Well I am from Canada, and it is interesting how the most mild mannered, least opinionated candidate won in Iowa. This is reflective of the mindset of Republicans in the US, they all think like Rick Santorum, but they know their party can not win with an extremist at the helm.
So they will probably elect mr. corporate interests with a kind smile, Mitt Romney.
Personally, I would LOVE to see Ron Paul win the presidential election because of his no non sense approach to the questions people ask him.
RON PAUL HAS A STAND. He has an OPINION. And he is not afraid to say it! I disagree with that depiction of Santorum. He's not a mild-mannered, least opinionated candidate, he just attracts voters (evangelicals) that only care about a couple of issues (gays, abortions and turning the 10 commandmends into the law of the land). If he does decently in the primaries and doesn't beat up too much on Mitt, he might have a good shot at a VP spot under Romney. Appease the base, make sure they turn up and all that.
That would be sad. America needs to change the way it governs itself--it needs less religion and less money in politics; neither Romney, Santorum, nor Obama can really deliver that.
|
Also what's with all this religion in politics? Does it really all that important in the US, what religion a candidate has?
|
Yeah, real funny. Gary Johnson was elected governor of New Mexico and Ron Paul has been elected to the House a dozen times. Neither are joke candidates.
Libertarians are the funny* jokes of American politics, so yes, they are joke candidates.
*Utopians are the sad jokes.
|
RON PAUL HAS A STAND. He has an OPINION. And he is not afraid to say it![/QUOTE]
lol...
How is this an argument? Well it actually is ...This republican field is SOOOOOOOOO bad, Ron Paul looks good because he seems to be the only one that is not totally bought out and seems to believe in what he sais is the right way.
That alone does not make him a good candidate or a smart person (which he sure is), plenty of TERRIBLE leaders believed in their own Ideas (and could sell them to the masses... And were smart)...
That just makes him the most believable and honest of this TERRIBLE field, nothing more.
I mean.. Who do you got there?
Romney that seems to sell out to the highest paying in a whim (flipflopping like mad) but does a good job not coming over as a total nutjob and has the looks. (+some others that do the same but worse)
Santorum/Bachman/Religious Nutjobs.
Cain.. Lol.
Ron Paul... The libertarian messiah since i don't know how many years...
Among the blind the one eyed is king...
|
Pandemona
Charlie Sheens House51449 Posts
On January 04 2012 21:10 Derez wrote:Show nested quote +On January 04 2012 20:13 Pandemona wrote:
Man im so jealous of how American actually takes notice and votes in Elections and takes note of goverment issues...England is so so different, you almost have to force people to vote and its crazy.
Presidential election in America is nearly or is as big news as OUR own general election is. I have heard about the Iowa vote for the past week on news stations in England its crazy. When i was in America and our OWN general election was on, it was on 0 news stations in America (was in florida at the time) and when we asked the Americans about our Election they just said we dont really know its going on or /care its going on (they werent being rude just honest)...Crazy really xD
So close in the votes aswell, be very interesting year of voting i think. Good luck America! Yet out of a state of 3 million people, only about 120.000 people participated in this particular primary. A higher percentage of Europeans (on average) vote in their general election then they do in America. I'm not so sure they're better off in the US.
3million state, 120,000 people voted for the RIVAL to current president in the presidential race? So maybe the other 2.88million like Obama?
In England, people vote for whoever is "most popular" or whoever tells them to vote for (ie the media) asked about why they vote for who they did not many give you a respectable answer, asked about political policies and info on debates they lack a decent answer or sometimes don't even know whats going on.
|
Pandemona
Charlie Sheens House51449 Posts
On January 04 2012 22:49 Velr wrote:Show nested quote +On January 04 2012 20:13 Pandemona wrote:
Man im so jealous of how American actually takes notice and votes in Elections and takes note of goverment issues...England is so so different, you almost have to force people to vote and its crazy.
Presidential election in America is nearly or is as big news as OUR own general election is. I have heard about the Iowa vote for the past week on news stations in England its crazy. When i was in America and our OWN general election was on, it was on 0 news stations in America (was in florida at the time) and when we asked the Americans about our Election they just said we dont really know its going on or /care its going on (they werent being rude just honest)...Crazy really xD
So close in the votes aswell, be very interesting year of voting i think. Good luck America! Uhh... You seriously should read up about the american voting act/system. It's really horrible... You have to "register yourself" to vote? WTF? You vote during a normal weekday? WTF? These primaries atm are also basically not "true" elections, the media just blow them up like crazy.
You have to register yourself to vote? So do you in the English voting system, you get a form to fill out when you become 18 in the post and you have to send it back, not much difference? Our voting days are on the weekday aswell 12-14hours of time to vote from 6am-8pm i think it was last time. Primary elections or not, they are voting for a candidate to go against Obama? That is news worthy, England system you have 4 main partys vote for whichever leader has your view or views, which is silly when like this time a party with 10-15% sells himself to the other to get into power as "coalition" goverment t.t
Id much rather have 1 year before election a race between 3/4 people of difference veiws/ways to vote to be election rival to the current goverment.
|
On January 05 2012 00:28 Pandemona wrote:Show nested quote +On January 04 2012 21:10 Derez wrote:On January 04 2012 20:13 Pandemona wrote:
Man im so jealous of how American actually takes notice and votes in Elections and takes note of goverment issues...England is so so different, you almost have to force people to vote and its crazy.
Presidential election in America is nearly or is as big news as OUR own general election is. I have heard about the Iowa vote for the past week on news stations in England its crazy. When i was in America and our OWN general election was on, it was on 0 news stations in America (was in florida at the time) and when we asked the Americans about our Election they just said we dont really know its going on or /care its going on (they werent being rude just honest)...Crazy really xD
So close in the votes aswell, be very interesting year of voting i think. Good luck America! Yet out of a state of 3 million people, only about 120.000 people participated in this particular primary. A higher percentage of Europeans (on average) vote in their general election then they do in America. I'm not so sure they're better off in the US. 3million state, 120,000 people voted for the RIVAL to current president in the presidential race? So maybe the other 2.88million like Obama? In England, people vote for whoever is "most popular" or whoever tells them to vote for (ie the media) asked about why they vote for who they did not many give you a respectable answer, asked about political policies and info on debates they lack a decent answer or sometimes don't even know whats going on.
To Derez:
First, it's a primary, so not open to those not registered Republican. Second, it's a caucus. It is not as simple as showing up to vote at some random time all day.
Also, population is 3 million of which ~829k are under age 18. The turnout isn't bad at all considering all that.
|
United States5162 Posts
On January 05 2012 00:28 Pandemona wrote:Show nested quote +On January 04 2012 21:10 Derez wrote:On January 04 2012 20:13 Pandemona wrote:
Man im so jealous of how American actually takes notice and votes in Elections and takes note of goverment issues...England is so so different, you almost have to force people to vote and its crazy.
Presidential election in America is nearly or is as big news as OUR own general election is. I have heard about the Iowa vote for the past week on news stations in England its crazy. When i was in America and our OWN general election was on, it was on 0 news stations in America (was in florida at the time) and when we asked the Americans about our Election they just said we dont really know its going on or /care its going on (they werent being rude just honest)...Crazy really xD
So close in the votes aswell, be very interesting year of voting i think. Good luck America! Yet out of a state of 3 million people, only about 120.000 people participated in this particular primary. A higher percentage of Europeans (on average) vote in their general election then they do in America. I'm not so sure they're better off in the US. 3million state, 120,000 people voted for the RIVAL to current president in the presidential race? So maybe the other 2.88million like Obama? In England, people vote for whoever is "most popular" or whoever tells them to vote for (ie the media) asked about why they vote for who they did not many give you a respectable answer, asked about political policies and info on debates they lack a decent answer or sometimes don't even know whats going on.
The United States has horrible turn out rates and most people couldn't even name all the candidates let alone their stances - and that's for the general election not the caucuses/primaries. The media coverage may lead you to believe that Americans are more attentive and active, but vast majority of people don't pay any attention until the actual Presidential election, and even then more than 1 out of 3 people don't show up and vote. And the majority of the people who do vote just vote for their party.
|
United States22883 Posts
On January 05 2012 00:14 Evotroid wrote:
Also what's with all this religion in politics? Does it really all that important in the US, what religion a candidate has?
Yes. A Muslim emeritus professor of economics would lose to Jerry Sandusky.
|
On January 05 2012 00:35 AcuWill wrote:Show nested quote +On January 05 2012 00:28 Pandemona wrote:On January 04 2012 21:10 Derez wrote:On January 04 2012 20:13 Pandemona wrote:
Man im so jealous of how American actually takes notice and votes in Elections and takes note of goverment issues...England is so so different, you almost have to force people to vote and its crazy.
Presidential election in America is nearly or is as big news as OUR own general election is. I have heard about the Iowa vote for the past week on news stations in England its crazy. When i was in America and our OWN general election was on, it was on 0 news stations in America (was in florida at the time) and when we asked the Americans about our Election they just said we dont really know its going on or /care its going on (they werent being rude just honest)...Crazy really xD
So close in the votes aswell, be very interesting year of voting i think. Good luck America! Yet out of a state of 3 million people, only about 120.000 people participated in this particular primary. A higher percentage of Europeans (on average) vote in their general election then they do in America. I'm not so sure they're better off in the US. 3million state, 120,000 people voted for the RIVAL to current president in the presidential race? So maybe the other 2.88million like Obama? In England, people vote for whoever is "most popular" or whoever tells them to vote for (ie the media) asked about why they vote for who they did not many give you a respectable answer, asked about political policies and info on debates they lack a decent answer or sometimes don't even know whats going on. To Derez: First, it's a primary, so not open to those not registered Republican. Second, it's a caucus. It is not as simple as showing up to vote at some random time all day. Also, population is 3 million of which ~829k are under age 18. The turnout isn't bad at all considering all that.
First of all: The iowa caucusses are open to anyone that shows up and reregistration is possible on the spot. As an interesting tidbit, among (registered) republican voters, Santorum came in first. And yea, it's a causus, which is obviously different, but my point was that political participation in the US is probably lower then it is in Europe.
I was responding to someone that claimed that US citizens are more involved in the politics/elections then people are in Europe. Based on things like participation in general elections, that's simply not true. More people go to vote in the UK/Germany/France/the Netherlands then do in the US. When visiting this thread it might seem like everyone is involved in politics, but that's only the people that were willing to click on the topic in the first place.
You can explain it lots of ways (the electoral system plays a big role for sure), but to claim that people are more politically involved based on the Iowa caucusses is just stupid, especially since the guy I originally responded to doesn't really seem to know much about American politics in general (which is fine by me, all here to pick up something useful). American presidents are at times elected by less then 25% of the actual voting age population, which is crazy when your electoral system is based around pluralities.
|
On January 05 2012 00:14 Evotroid wrote:
Also what's with all this religion in politics? Does it really all that important in the US, what religion a candidate has?
Hahahahaha  Absolutely.
We're never going to get a president who's non-Christian, let alone non-religious, regardless of how qualified for the seat of presidency he/ she actually is.
We have a very strong Christian majority in the country, and a lot of people who think that religious faith is incredibly important in a political leader and military commander.
+ Show Spoiler +I don't know why, considering we're supposed to be secularist 
|
Yes. A Muslim emeritus professor of economics would lose to Jerry Sandusky.
People also used to say that no one would ever vote for a backwoods hick who was little better than the "Indian savages" he fought, then no one would ever vote for a "Black Republican" for president, then it was never vote for a Catholic for president, then a black man or a woman, now it's a Muslim.
American presidents are at times elected by less then 25% of the actual voting age population, which is crazy when your electoral system is based around pluralities.
The lowest turnout among "actual voting age population" was 49% in 1924.
Ignorance about the US is at a premium on the internet.
|
United States5162 Posts
On January 05 2012 00:47 DeepElemBlues wrote:People also used to say that no one would ever vote for a backwoods hick who was little better than the "Indian savages" he fought, then no one would ever vote for a "Black Republican" for president, then it was never vote for a Catholic for president, then a black man or a woman, now it's a Muslim.
He wasn't talking about ever, he was talking about right now. Right now, a Muslim would lose to a pedophile, sadly. In the future these views may change, and I sure hope they do.
|
He wasn't talking about ever, he was talking about right now. Right now, a Muslim would lose to a pedophile, sadly. In the future these views may change, and I sure hope they do.
All those people were talking about their "right now" when they said that too. He's wrong, and so are you. And it shows how self-satisfying conclusions go a long way towards reinforcing stereotypes no matter how silly they are.
A child molester would beat a Muslim. That's just nonsensical, no matter how clever it may have sounded. It's also a statement that's more accurately applied to Europe than anywhere else and even then it wouldn't happen.
|
United States5162 Posts
On January 05 2012 00:51 DeepElemBlues wrote:Show nested quote +He wasn't talking about ever, he was talking about right now. Right now, a Muslim would lose to a pedophile, sadly. In the future these views may change, and I sure hope they do. All those people were talking about "right now" when they said that too. He's wrong, and so are you. And it shows how self-satisfying conclusions go a long way towards reinforcing stereotypes no matter how silly they are. A child molester would beat a Muslim. That's just nonsensical, no matter how clever it may have sounded.
Well, honestly, neither would ever make it to primaries, let alone get voted for. And it's not wrong, you're crazy if you think that a Muslim could win this election. Obama got lambasted because he looks kinda Muslim and has a Arab sounding name.
|
On January 05 2012 00:51 DeepElemBlues wrote:Show nested quote +He wasn't talking about ever, he was talking about right now. Right now, a Muslim would lose to a pedophile, sadly. In the future these views may change, and I sure hope they do. All those people were talking about "right now" when they said that too. He's wrong, and so are you. And it shows how self-satisfying conclusions go a long way towards reinforcing stereotypes no matter how silly they are. A child molester would beat a Muslim. That's just nonsensical, no matter how clever it may have sounded.
Judging from some of your "voters" many of them think that every Muslim is a child Molesters cause of Allahs "underage" (nowadays) wife(s)... But the smear campaigns would be really fun.
I mean, Obama got depicted as basically an evil muslim terrorist... Just imagine what they would say about a real Muslim ^^.
|
Pandemona
Charlie Sheens House51449 Posts
On January 05 2012 00:37 Myles wrote:Show nested quote +On January 05 2012 00:28 Pandemona wrote:On January 04 2012 21:10 Derez wrote:On January 04 2012 20:13 Pandemona wrote:
Man im so jealous of how American actually takes notice and votes in Elections and takes note of goverment issues...England is so so different, you almost have to force people to vote and its crazy.
Presidential election in America is nearly or is as big news as OUR own general election is. I have heard about the Iowa vote for the past week on news stations in England its crazy. When i was in America and our OWN general election was on, it was on 0 news stations in America (was in florida at the time) and when we asked the Americans about our Election they just said we dont really know its going on or /care its going on (they werent being rude just honest)...Crazy really xD
So close in the votes aswell, be very interesting year of voting i think. Good luck America! Yet out of a state of 3 million people, only about 120.000 people participated in this particular primary. A higher percentage of Europeans (on average) vote in their general election then they do in America. I'm not so sure they're better off in the US. 3million state, 120,000 people voted for the RIVAL to current president in the presidential race? So maybe the other 2.88million like Obama? In England, people vote for whoever is "most popular" or whoever tells them to vote for (ie the media) asked about why they vote for who they did not many give you a respectable answer, asked about political policies and info on debates they lack a decent answer or sometimes don't even know whats going on. The United States has horrible turn out rates and most people couldn't even name all the candidates let alone their stances - and that's for the general election not the caucuses/primaries. The media coverage may lead you to believe that Americans are more attentive and active, but vast majority of people don't pay any attention until the actual Presidential election, and even then more than 1 out of 3 people don't show up and vote. And the majority of the people who do vote just vote for their party.
Oh so it the media that hypes it up to extreme publicity. Seems the opposite in England though and very poor system.
|
|
|
|
|
|
EPT
