EPTPresident Obama Re-Elected - Page 1445
| Forum Index > General Forum |
Hey guys! We'll be closing this thread shortly, but we will make an American politics megathread where we can continue the discussions in here. The new thread can be found here: http://www.teamliquid.net/forum/viewmessage.php?topic_id=383301 | ||
|
Sanctimonius
United Kingdom861 Posts
| ||
|
DannyJ
United States5110 Posts
| ||
|
oneofthem
Cayman Islands24199 Posts
| ||
|
Zooper31
United States5710 Posts
On November 11 2012 14:52 Sanctimonius wrote: Shouldn't parties also campaign on social issues? I mean, certain things are important to me and I'm sure others want to see a party campaign on issues important to them, not simply fiscal ones. The problem is that there are only two choices in the US system, leaving you with the liberal view (most things are ok) or the conservative one (burn the witch). Maybe if there were more parties to choose from then there could be a wider choice of social issues to vote on. Conserative fiscally and socially liberal, how come theres no party of that or vice versa? | ||
|
Craze
United States561 Posts
| ||
|
oneofthem
Cayman Islands24199 Posts
the 'fiscal' conservative movement is sold as a return to self reliance, american dream bootstrap tradition to religious conservatives. nobody cares about what religious conservatives actually want, they just are votes. | ||
|
Leporello
United States2845 Posts
The GOP ideology exists on websites and selective-media and think-tanks, but they don't seem to dare present it beyond that. And why should they, since the "ideological" voters of the GOP, such as the Tea Party members, seem to not really care about the true-conservatism of their candidates? The GOP turned out for Mitt Romney, a Governor of a liberal state, with a moderate record as Governor, who ran a campaign in the general election that was rhetorically devoid of conservatism. The only fundamentalism I can say the GOP stood for in this election was to be fundamentally against the President as a person. So, yeah, conservative ideology might be great (or not), but their politicians are what matter. And they're awful. If the GOP would elect a candidate to get on stage in a national debate, with a Democrat, and tell America they want to declare fetuses to be human in all cases of conception (we saw a little of that in some State elections this year, to hilarious results), call global-warming a giant conspiracy, cut the Estate Tax and cut down the top income-tax brackets, denounce evolution, denounce homosexuality, denounce Social Security and Medicare, make it easier for people to buy more assault weapons, etc. -- then I will vote for that person purely for their honesty, even though I'd be disagreeing with everything they're saying. But it'll never happen, because conservative ideology, even in at its most tepid, is currently not at all what America wants. I really don't think Americans, as a whole, feel as Republicans do when it comes to Welfare, as an example. People want to work, people want purpose, people want to be appreciated. People don't want to be reliant on others, not even the government. The people want a government that provides help to those in need -- and I do not think the majority of us feel that, as a consequence to these provisions, people will simply become increasingly reliant on the provisions until they become total blobs waiting for their government checks. People want to work, because it gives life purpose. That applies to all people. It's a human characteristic, completely non-racial, and non-sexist. I find the Republican ideology when it comes to welfare repugnant, as I think most people do. It literally insults the entire human race. Thanks Ayn Rand. We have an increasing divide between rich and poor throughout the world -- increasing for a long-time now, to disgusting lengths. People do not want to hear about "class-warfare" when it comes to asking the government to provide more for its people, or to raise taxes on the rich by a percentage point or two at a time of budget deficits. That is not class-warfare, class-warfare is fighting against minimum-wage increases and busting unions. Ultimately, this election, Mitt Romney, the GOP's choosing of Mitt Romney, and their loyalty to Mitt Romney, affirmed for me that the GOP is aware that their ideologies no longer apply in this century. They enjoy the game of politics, so they gave America a piece of milquetoast called Mitt Romney, to work with in whatever ways they could. Now they need to go to the drawing board, empty those minds, and come up with something new. We're living in a world of corporate conglomerates and international monetary superpowers -- so stand for something more nuanced than economic freedom, because that side of humanity is doing just fine. Just my two cents. I've argued enough in this thread over the past months, the election is over and there's a long-time until the next one. So I'm promising to just avoid this thread, especially since things are sounding more redundant than ever (myself included, I'm sure). Thanks to my fellow liberals, and a few of the conservatives who were able to engage with me in an honest fashion. It's been fun, and informative. | ||
|
Danglars
United States12133 Posts
On November 11 2012 15:10 oneofthem wrote: it's two minority positions using/manipulating each other. the 'fiscal' conservative movement is sold as a return to self reliance, american dream bootstrap tradition to religious conservatives. nobody cares about what religious conservatives actually want, they just are votes. We're talking about a blur of many minority positions. Moderate Republicans, wanting a significant government presence in the economy, believing that they can do it better than Democrats doing the same, or find significant compromise possible. Conservative Republicans want the government dramatically decreased, on the whole, generally very much support a hefty military with a global presence (i.e. few qualms there on spending), tax cuts, and gun rights. A huge base of the conservative faction is also very religious. When value topics come up such as prayer in schools, abortion on demand, marriage defined as man-woman, euthanasia--these are generally very much vocalized and candidates pressured on one side. There are also "value voters" Republicans who just see the party as most supporting of their moral standards, and could care less about the size of government and tax cuts. To split hairs a little more, the fiscal conservatives show contempt for social conservatives and vice versa ("You're gonna lose our party votes with your social issues!" "No, you're gonna lose our party votes by not caring about them!) You saw the Tea Party really trying to push the Republican party to the conservative faction with campaigning both in 2010 midterms and the 2012 campaign. Notably, the 2012 nominee for the party was not a conservative poster boy at the beginning. You had Herman Cain and Newt Gingrich heading up that charge in the primaries, but through a number of factors, Romney emerged as the only contender. He had to speak like a conservative after the primaries to get his base back behind him, given how much moderate catering he did in the primaries. Campaigners still abide by the general motto, "Be a moderate for the primaries, and a conservative for the election." I.E. get the support of moderates in the more liberal-leaning primaries and some conservative support, then deliver whatever rhetoric resonates at the time. Any conservatives you alienate in this process will come back because of how left the opposition candidate is, and secondly by claiming you've always been hardcore tax cuts and small government. It happened this past election! Obama passed his stimulus package, the PPACA, and seemed weak on the military/Israel support. Given no other real place to put their vote, Romney was it. Compromise sucks; you fight with your faction to pull the party and the candidates to your side. Romney betrayed core principles in Massachusetts, but at least he had to run a business, one that was successful, and he wasn't ashamed of it. Gotta deal with the rest as it comes. Medicare & Social Security go bankrupt as the demagogues decry attempts to reform them. We haven't had a budget in over a decade, and congresspeople keep going back to Washington pretending their pet projects and issues are the real important ones. Fiscal cliff is coming up, occupying way too much of my time preparing a nonprofit for its effects, and the steps up to 2014 hold promise of increased costs by way of health insurance rate hikes. Grow up or go broke. We'll see to what extent that'll happen in the next four years, since a majority of voters aren't ready for the trimming back yet. | ||
|
dreamsmasher
816 Posts
On November 11 2012 15:05 Zooper31 wrote: Conserative fiscally and socially liberal, how come theres no party of that or vice versa? there is its libertarian and its pretty bad. | ||
|
dreamsmasher
816 Posts
On November 11 2012 15:10 Craze wrote: Because anyone that tries to begin any type of third party is crushed by the two larger parties. Our system is winner take all, so there's nothing to be gained by essentially "wasting" your vote on a smaller party and watching your second choice lose to your worst fear. hmm not exactly true as one generation dies off and a new one replaces it, parties need to embrace new issues etc... and since that is rather stagnant, mostly what you see is 3rd parties coming up with the new ideas, then one of the major parties adopting something that see is popular which leads to a more moderate position that embraces something 'like' what the 3rd party is doing, it has happened in the past. | ||
|
Scholera
United States166 Posts
| ||
|
Zeon0
Austria2995 Posts
 what do US citizens think about the voting system in the US? Do you think the electorial college is a fair system or do you think they should change it to a popular vote system like everywhere else? | ||
|
ondik
Czech Republic2908 Posts
On November 11 2012 20:23 dreamsmasher wrote: there is its libertarian and its pretty bad. Why is it pretty bad? From my unbiased european view I would vote for Ron Paul (if he was a candidate) over Obama/Romney without a doubt. And I think also any other libertarian because what Obama and Romney offer is hopeless. | ||
|
ShadeR
Australia7535 Posts
On November 11 2012 21:21 ondik wrote: Why is it pretty bad? From my unbiased european view I would vote for Ron Paul (if he was a candidate) over Obama/Romney without a doubt. And I think also any other libertarian because what Obama and Romney offer is hopeless. Ron Paul gets a lot of non MERICAA fans because he would lift uncle sams sweaty balls off from the rest of the worlds faces but that also means he is not as good a candidate for USA-IANS. | ||
|
kmillz
United States1548 Posts
On November 11 2012 15:45 Leporello wrote: So, yeah, conservative ideology might be great (or not), but their politicians are what matter. And they're awful. If the GOP would elect a candidate to get on stage in a national debate, with a Democrat, and tell America they want to declare fetuses to be human in all cases of conception (we saw a little of that in some State elections this year, to hilarious results), call global-warming a giant conspiracy, cut the Estate Tax and cut down the top income-tax brackets, denounce evolution, denounce homosexuality, denounce Social Security and Medicare, make it easier for people to buy more assault weapons, etc. -- then I will vote for that person purely for their honesty, even though I'd be disagreeing with everything they're saying. But it'll never happen, because conservative ideology, even in at its most tepid, is currently not at all what America wants. It saddens me that this is how the GOP is seen. Funny..I once considered myself a Republican and a Catholic and now I am neither. Didn't vote for Romney even though I think Obama's policies are terrible..its like I wanted to like him so much, but he literally made it impossible. He got whooped anyway, not like my one vote would've changed that..and now I get to have a clean conscience knowing I didn't vote for either evil! :D | ||
|
oneofthem
Cayman Islands24199 Posts
Medicare & Social Security go bankrupt as the demagogues decry attempts to reform them. there is no impending bankrupcy of either. medicare is the bigger problem but that's because of the runaway increase in medical cost. the only serious solution to this is a single payer, public option. social security needs more taxes to support it, not a lot of tax. had the political fearmongering caused it to be privatized in 2005 it'll be fucking bankrupt because of the crash. | ||
|
D10
Brazil3409 Posts
| ||
white_horse
1019 Posts
On November 11 2012 21:33 kmillz wrote: It saddens me that this is how the GOP is seen. Funny..I once considered myself a Republican and a Catholic and now I am neither. Didn't vote for Romney even though I think Obama's policies are terrible..its like I wanted to like him so much, but he literally made it impossible. He got whooped anyway, not like my one vote would've changed that..and now I get to have a clean conscience knowing I didn't vote for either evil! :D Well its kind of obvious why they are seen that way. The GOP has been jerked around by its tea party. The GOP doesn't just disagree with obama. They disrespect him. And I think part of the reason why is because he's black. Any republican will vehemently deny that they are racist if you ask them about it, but I think part of the reason of so much vitriol coming from the GOP is because obama is black. Accusing the president of not being born in the US even after proof is posted, accusing him to be some evil muslim, trump offering money to the public to uncover "secret' information about obama, accusing him of rigging the unemployment statistics for political gain, etc etc. Really now. I wonder how far the GOP would have gone with this kind of stuff had obama been white. These kind of antics scare away decent people who are only interested in whats good for the country. | ||
|
JinDesu
United States3990 Posts
On November 12 2012 00:12 D10 wrote: How do you view the young turks ? Annoying and liberally biased. At least the Daily Show is funny and is less overbearing. | ||
|
kmillz
United States1548 Posts
On November 12 2012 00:43 JinDesu wrote: Annoying and liberally biased. At least the Daily Show is funny and is less overbearing. Feel the same way. I love when he pokes fun at Bill O'Reilly, even though on the issues I tend to agree with Bill a tiny bit more. I think Bill just makes an idiot out of himself and makes me wish I didn't agree with his main point. On November 12 2012 00:29 white_horse wrote: Well its kind of obvious why they are seen that way. The GOP has been jerked around by its tea party. The GOP doesn't just disagree with obama. They disrespect him. And I think part of the reason why is because he's black. Any republican will vehemently deny that they are racist if you ask them about it, but I think part of the reason of so much vitriol coming from the GOP is because obama is black. Accusing the president of not being born in the US even after proof is posted, accusing him to be some evil muslim, trump offering money to the public to uncover "secret' information about obama, accusing him of rigging the unemployment statistics for political gain, etc etc. Really now. I wonder how far the GOP would have gone with this kind of stuff had obama been white. These kind of antics scare away decent people who are only interested in whats good for the country. Racism is a two-way street, and to suggest that only vitriol is coming from the GOP because obama is black, but yet disregard the possibility that vitriol could come from the other side because Mitt Romney is white is just silly....Unless you have some evidence that the GOP is more racist to black people than the Democratic party is racist towards white people, I would suggest you stop listening to Chris Matthews so much. You really think the birther movement started because he is black? Let's not forget: Some bloggers are questioning John McCain's right to run for the presidency on the basis of his birth in the Panama Canal Zone. Not EVERYTHING is about race....seriously. I'm not really that sympathetic towards any disrespect Obama gets after what George W. Bush endured. Not saying he was a good President...but as far as I'm concerned Obama is just as bad in the issues that concern me (liberty) and I can understand why half the country would have little respect for either of them. My honest opinion is that yes, there are people who are racist and simply do not like Obama for that reason (and again..its a 2-way street! Just ask Jay-Z why he isn't voting for smaller government), but I do not think it is the MAIN reason for the harshness towards him...I think that more stems from disagreement on policy. | ||
| ||
