|
|
On October 25 2012 03:42 Jormundr wrote:Show nested quote +On October 25 2012 03:38 farvacola wrote:On October 25 2012 03:36 Zaqwert wrote:On October 25 2012 03:32 Risen wrote:On October 25 2012 03:29 Zaqwert wrote:Obama was the least vetted and most mysterious candidate ever in 2008. That's a large portion of why he won. He was a Rorschach blotch, he ran on "Hope and Change" and people saw in him whatever they wanted to see, that combined with the fact he was the first black to be a nominee made people believe he was somehow different. Obviously all the minorities were excited, but a ton of whites were too. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Magical_NegroThat's actually one reason he's having so much difficulty this time around. People are majorly disappointed in the idiotic expectations they built up for him. They had no idea he was just another random politician, a product of the Chicago political machine, every bit as corrupt and soul-less as any other politician. Point to Obama's corruption for me? Point to where he's soulless? You say a lot, but you don't actually have anything to back those points up. You have "feelings". Try using your brain, bud. He hasn't been able to do anything b/c he's been obstructed the entire way. I had a dream last night where I voted Romney just to watch the country burn. It's tempting. 4 more years of Obama and another run of the mill Republican candidate, or let the Republicans take office and watch everything burn so in 4 years we can have a landslide Democratic victory. This way the Republican party HAS to change. It gets me where I want to be faster, but I don't know if it's the better way to do it. You actually think the country will be significantly different in 4 years with Obama vs. Romney? That's kinda cute. The Republican/Democrat right/left paradigm is a false construct designed to make you root for your "team" What designates a construct as "false"? He's operating under the assumption that Romney and obama = politicians and that politicians =/= their campaign. promises.
I thought he was operating under the assumption that Romney and Obama are more or less the exact same.
|
On October 25 2012 03:37 Swazi Spring wrote:+ Show Spoiler +On October 25 2012 03:27 dp wrote:
Swazi Spring, the things you are interested in, namely college papers and records might have been something to add to your reasoning for voting.. when he first ran. They don't matter now. You can piss and moan that they do, but that doesn't make it so. You have his first stretch as president to make an informed decision on how to vote. If he gets another four years, do you really think he is going to revert from his current ideologies to the ones he held in college?
This is just something used to rile up the uninformed or unintelligent. Its a smokescreen to the issues at hand, and every minute spent on it is a wasted one.
Also, this whole experience argument is funny as well. George W. Bush. How is that for modern? More? Ronald Reagan, Dwight Eisenhower, JFK, Jimmy Carter. etc etc etc. All white. I've seen Obama's first term and I don't like what I've seen. I don't like our economy in shambles. I don't like our civil liberties being stripped away. I don't like America looking weak on the international stage. I don't like having American citizens being extra-judicially executed by our head of state. I don't like America abandoning our long-time allies (Israel and the UK). I don't like our president's constant attacks on hard-work and success. I don't like the massive expansion of the entitlement culture. What makes you think his ideology ever seriously changed from when he was in college to today? What makes you think he isn't just hiding his true intentions until after the election?
Are you trying to make my point for me? There is already a foundation of ACTUAL things to make an informed decision on. Everything you wrote simply proves the point that his current time in office is the only thing that matters for a voter, not what happened during his college years. And if he is hiding his true intentions, what are they? What is this terrible thing he is planing on destroying America with?
Also, nice dodge on the abundance of presidents before him that had equal or less experience. A simple 'I was wrong' will suffice for me.
|
On October 25 2012 03:42 jdsowa wrote:
The American people are naturally conservative. Conservative in the sense of wanting to preserve the status quo.
The average voter is a middle-aged person who just wants to go to and from work, take their kids to soccer practice and come home and fall alseep in front of the TV without any hassles along the way. They don't want government supports taken away, they don't want the concept of marriage as they know it to change overnight, and they don't want to worry that other countries might attack us.
If a politician proposes any policies that would even possibly suggest to threaten that lifestyle with even a very slight hiccup, then the average voter will simply reject that politician.
The two party system completely covers the spectrum of acceptable mainstream politics, and exceeds it in many cases. The fact that it exceeds it at all--that there are Democrats and Republicans that have views that lie far outside of the mainstream--is evidence that a national 3rd party candidate can never truly be viable. You can buy TV time and generate temporary amusement, but a majority will never cast their vote for you.
Since a national politician can't afford to express too many views outside of the status quo, they have to spend a great deal of their time pretending. And since each guy does an equal share of pretending, and because their policies can't diverge too far from the mainstream, the American people make their decision based on which guy is more charismatic while still being adequately presidential. Ultimately, Barack Obama is that guy.
That was a pretty interesting and mostly accurate post, but Obama has been pretty radical for someone who "represents the status quo" as you suggested. Universal healthcare, banning guns, amnesty for illegals, and abandoning our long-time allies are pretty radical ideas that are far-removed from the mainstream political discourse.
|
On October 25 2012 03:20 Swazi Spring wrote:Show nested quote +On October 25 2012 03:10 JonnyBNoHo wrote:
The state was going to do healthcare reform no matter what. If "Romneycare" wasn't passed something else and similar would have been.
Romney was against same-sex marriage and for domestic partnerships.
The gun bans Romney signed into law simply made existing laws permanent.
On abortion Romney seems to have moved to the right since governor, though that's probably a reflection of the different office Romney is running for.
Basically a lot of liberal laws were passed when Romney was governor because MA is a liberal state. I don't really know enough about the internal politics of Massachusetts in the 1990s to counter your points, sorry. You seem to have done some research on the subject, and I respect that. As for gun rights, why would he make them permanent? And even if there was absolutely nothing he could have done to stop them, that doesn't change very anti-gun statements he made at the time. For instance, Romney said he "doesn't line up with the NRA" and that "assault weapons have no place in Massachusetts." Never mind the fact that there is no such thing as a semi-automatic assault weapon, that's just a lie that the liberal media has been promulgating. Full-auto guns were banned in the 1980s under the Hughes Amendment, NOT under the Federal Assault Weapons Ban, which didn't really do anything other than ban certain extensions to guns, but I digress.
Well I've lived in MA most of my life so I really haven't had to do much research 
Part of the new gun law was also to make sure that legitimate gun owners (hunters, self-defense) found it easier to own guns.
The new law also makes a number of improvements to the current gun licensing system, including:
• Extending the term of a firearm identification card and a license to carry firearms from four years to six years;
• Granting a 90-day grace period for holders of firearm identification cards and licenses to carry who have applied for renewal; and
• Creating a seven-member Firearm License Review Board to review firearm license applications that have been denied.
"This is truly a great day for Massachusetts' sportsmen and women," said Senator Stephen M. Brewer. "These reforms correct some serious mistakes that were made during the gun debate in 1998, when many of our state's gun owners were stripped of their long-standing rights to own firearms. I applaud Senate President Travaglini for allowing the Senate to undertake this necessary legislation." link
The law also didn't really put any new restrictions in place that weren't already in place at the state and federal level. Part of the reasoning behind the bill was that everyone was happy with the status quo and didn't want politics in Washington to change that.
|
On October 25 2012 03:48 Swazi Spring wrote:Show nested quote +On October 25 2012 03:42 jdsowa wrote:
The American people are naturally conservative. Conservative in the sense of wanting to preserve the status quo.
The average voter is a middle-aged person who just wants to go to and from work, take their kids to soccer practice and come home and fall alseep in front of the TV without any hassles along the way. They don't want government supports taken away, they don't want the concept of marriage as they know it to change overnight, and they don't want to worry that other countries might attack us.
If a politician proposes any policies that would even possibly suggest to threaten that lifestyle with even a very slight hiccup, then the average voter will simply reject that politician.
The two party system completely covers the spectrum of acceptable mainstream politics, and exceeds it in many cases. The fact that it exceeds it at all--that there are Democrats and Republicans that have views that lie far outside of the mainstream--is evidence that a national 3rd party candidate can never truly be viable. You can buy TV time and generate temporary amusement, but a majority will never cast their vote for you.
Since a national politician can't afford to express too many views outside of the status quo, they have to spend a great deal of their time pretending. And since each guy does an equal share of pretending, and because their policies can't diverge too far from the mainstream, the American people make their decision based on which guy is more charismatic while still being adequately presidential. Ultimately, Barack Obama is that guy. That was a pretty interesting and mostly accurate post, but Obama has been pretty radical for someone who "represents the status quo" as you suggested. Universal healthcare, banning guns, amnesty for illegals, and abandoning our long-time allies are pretty radical ideas that are far-removed from the mainstream political discourse.
I've yet to see any evidence of either of these.
|
On October 25 2012 03:47 dp wrote:Show nested quote +On October 25 2012 03:37 Swazi Spring wrote:+ Show Spoiler +On October 25 2012 03:27 dp wrote:
Swazi Spring, the things you are interested in, namely college papers and records might have been something to add to your reasoning for voting.. when he first ran. They don't matter now. You can piss and moan that they do, but that doesn't make it so. You have his first stretch as president to make an informed decision on how to vote. If he gets another four years, do you really think he is going to revert from his current ideologies to the ones he held in college?
This is just something used to rile up the uninformed or unintelligent. Its a smokescreen to the issues at hand, and every minute spent on it is a wasted one.
Also, this whole experience argument is funny as well. George W. Bush. How is that for modern? More? Ronald Reagan, Dwight Eisenhower, JFK, Jimmy Carter. etc etc etc. All white. I've seen Obama's first term and I don't like what I've seen. I don't like our economy in shambles. I don't like our civil liberties being stripped away. I don't like America looking weak on the international stage. I don't like having American citizens being extra-judicially executed by our head of state. I don't like America abandoning our long-time allies (Israel and the UK). I don't like our president's constant attacks on hard-work and success. I don't like the massive expansion of the entitlement culture. What makes you think his ideology ever seriously changed from when he was in college to today? What makes you think he isn't just hiding his true intentions until after the election? Are you trying to make my point for me? There is already a foundation of ACTUAL things to make an informed decision on. Everything you wrote simply proves the point that his current time in office is the only thing that matters for a voter, not what happened during his college years. And if he is hiding his true intentions, what are they? What is this terrible thing he is planing on destroying America with? Also, nice dodge on the abundance of presidents before him that had equal or less experience. A simple 'I was wrong' will suffice for me.
Was I wrong? Even the left-wing media is admitting that nobody knew (or currently knows) who Barack Obama is. The Associated Press published this yesterday: http://www.google.com/hostednews/ap/article/ALeqM5iQW4566ATAkGjIDrkcwLMhtz6MfA?docId=60c6079b57184bfc81c11f34242dafcf
Here's what Rush Limbaugh had to say about it: http://www.rushlimbaugh.com/daily/2012/10/23/ap_asks_who_is_barack_obama
|
http://www.reddit.com/r/politics/comments/1201ng/romney_will_say_whatever_it_takes_to_get_elected/c6r2wkv
I know /r/politics (Where I find most articles about the USA election) is heavily slanted towards democrats as well as any links there but could anyone here point me to a similarly slanted republican area of the net or hell, a similar subreddit? My personal view is that romney's facade that's presented to the public, as a moderate, conservative leaning individual is completely at odds with his personal view of how society should be, a haven for the rich and a struggle for the poor to move upwards, with policies that help the rich get richer while simultaneously reducing social mobility. Stuff like his apparent lack of knowledge of where families making sub-50k or even sub-100k get most of their income (lowering taxes on capital gains? wtf?). Outside the USA, news sites seem to be reporting actual facts and news about the election instead of partisan bias that people throw around inside the USA.
Outside the USA, (me for example) it's strikingly clear that Obama is by far and away the better choice (partially due to the fact that essentially the entire world is left of the USA) despite the handful of civil rights (NDAA? the indefinite arrest thing) problems. I also don't understand the reluctance to tax the rich, the people earning 1 mil+ per year. There's no reason that tax rates on stuff like capital gains should be at 15%, it does nothing for those without capital to invest and only serves to enrich the wealthy.
http://theweek.com/article/index/235288/why-the-world-wants-obama-to-win
|
I voted last night.
|
|
|
On October 25 2012 01:32 Swazi Spring wrote:Here's the video: + Show Spoiler +It sounds like a reasonable offer to me. I only hope that Obama releases all of the papers he claims to have written in college.
This could be one of the most ridiculous and utterly embarrassing things I have ever seen. How can you think this is reasonable?
|
On October 25 2012 03:48 Swazi Spring wrote:Show nested quote +On October 25 2012 03:42 jdsowa wrote:
The American people are naturally conservative. Conservative in the sense of wanting to preserve the status quo.
The average voter is a middle-aged person who just wants to go to and from work, take their kids to soccer practice and come home and fall alseep in front of the TV without any hassles along the way. They don't want government supports taken away, they don't want the concept of marriage as they know it to change overnight, and they don't want to worry that other countries might attack us.
If a politician proposes any policies that would even possibly suggest to threaten that lifestyle with even a very slight hiccup, then the average voter will simply reject that politician.
The two party system completely covers the spectrum of acceptable mainstream politics, and exceeds it in many cases. The fact that it exceeds it at all--that there are Democrats and Republicans that have views that lie far outside of the mainstream--is evidence that a national 3rd party candidate can never truly be viable. You can buy TV time and generate temporary amusement, but a majority will never cast their vote for you.
Since a national politician can't afford to express too many views outside of the status quo, they have to spend a great deal of their time pretending. And since each guy does an equal share of pretending, and because their policies can't diverge too far from the mainstream, the American people make their decision based on which guy is more charismatic while still being adequately presidential. Ultimately, Barack Obama is that guy. That was a pretty interesting and mostly accurate post, but Obama has been pretty radical for someone who "represents the status quo" as you suggested. Universal healthcare, banning guns, amnesty for illegals, and abandoning our long-time allies are pretty radical ideas that are far-removed from the mainstream political discourse.
You are so uninformed it hurts my eyes. Obama has been very pro-guns.
|
On October 25 2012 03:50 upperbound wrote:Show nested quote +On October 25 2012 03:48 Swazi Spring wrote:On October 25 2012 03:42 jdsowa wrote:
The American people are naturally conservative. Conservative in the sense of wanting to preserve the status quo.
The average voter is a middle-aged person who just wants to go to and from work, take their kids to soccer practice and come home and fall alseep in front of the TV without any hassles along the way. They don't want government supports taken away, they don't want the concept of marriage as they know it to change overnight, and they don't want to worry that other countries might attack us.
If a politician proposes any policies that would even possibly suggest to threaten that lifestyle with even a very slight hiccup, then the average voter will simply reject that politician.
The two party system completely covers the spectrum of acceptable mainstream politics, and exceeds it in many cases. The fact that it exceeds it at all--that there are Democrats and Republicans that have views that lie far outside of the mainstream--is evidence that a national 3rd party candidate can never truly be viable. You can buy TV time and generate temporary amusement, but a majority will never cast their vote for you.
Since a national politician can't afford to express too many views outside of the status quo, they have to spend a great deal of their time pretending. And since each guy does an equal share of pretending, and because their policies can't diverge too far from the mainstream, the American people make their decision based on which guy is more charismatic while still being adequately presidential. Ultimately, Barack Obama is that guy. That was a pretty interesting and mostly accurate post, but Obama has been pretty radical for someone who "represents the status quo" as you suggested. Universal healthcare, banning guns, amnesty for illegals, and abandoning our long-time allies are pretty radical ideas that are far-removed from the mainstream political discourse. I've yet to see any evidence of either of these.
Prior to running for president, Obama voted in favor of several gun control laws and made several anti-gun statements, ranging from a complete ban on hand-guns to a complete ban on semi-automatic guns to a complete ban on "assault weapons" to making it so you can only buy one handgun a month, and much much more. He also said that he disagrees with DC vs. Heller. He also said that he is opposed to the right to carry. As president he said he is going to re-instate the (now-expired) Federal Assault Weapons Ban and that he wanted "stricter gun control law," but he didn't elaborate on what he meant by that.
He abandoned the United Kingdom (our closest ally) and sided with Argentina: http://blogs.telegraph.co.uk/news/nilegardiner/100162100/the-obama-administration-knifes-britain-yet-again-over-the-falklands/
He also abandoned Israel and sided with Palestine: http://www.cnn.com/2011/POLITICS/05/19/obama.israel.palestinians/index.html
|
On October 25 2012 03:52 Swazi Spring wrote:+ Show Spoiler +On October 25 2012 03:47 dp wrote:Show nested quote +On October 25 2012 03:37 Swazi Spring wrote:+ Show Spoiler +On October 25 2012 03:27 dp wrote:
Swazi Spring, the things you are interested in, namely college papers and records might have been something to add to your reasoning for voting.. when he first ran. They don't matter now. You can piss and moan that they do, but that doesn't make it so. You have his first stretch as president to make an informed decision on how to vote. If he gets another four years, do you really think he is going to revert from his current ideologies to the ones he held in college?
This is just something used to rile up the uninformed or unintelligent. Its a smokescreen to the issues at hand, and every minute spent on it is a wasted one.
Also, this whole experience argument is funny as well. George W. Bush. How is that for modern? More? Ronald Reagan, Dwight Eisenhower, JFK, Jimmy Carter. etc etc etc. All white. I've seen Obama's first term and I don't like what I've seen. I don't like our economy in shambles. I don't like our civil liberties being stripped away. I don't like America looking weak on the international stage. I don't like having American citizens being extra-judicially executed by our head of state. I don't like America abandoning our long-time allies (Israel and the UK). I don't like our president's constant attacks on hard-work and success. I don't like the massive expansion of the entitlement culture. What makes you think his ideology ever seriously changed from when he was in college to today? What makes you think he isn't just hiding his true intentions until after the election? Are you trying to make my point for me? There is already a foundation of ACTUAL things to make an informed decision on. Everything you wrote simply proves the point that his current time in office is the only thing that matters for a voter, not what happened during his college years. And if he is hiding his true intentions, what are they? What is this terrible thing he is planing on destroying America with? Also, nice dodge on the abundance of presidents before him that had equal or less experience. A simple 'I was wrong' will suffice for me. Was I wrong? Even the left-wing media is admitting that nobody knew (or currently knows) who Barack Obama is. The Associated Press published this yesterday: http://www.google.com/hostednews/ap/article/ALeqM5iQW4566ATAkGjIDrkcwLMhtz6MfA?docId=60c6079b57184bfc81c11f34242dafcfHere's what Rush Limbaugh had to say about it: http://www.rushlimbaugh.com/daily/2012/10/23/ap_asks_who_is_barack_obama
Nobody knows any president. People try to make this a point but it is simply some bullshit pushed around to scare people into voting with their feelings and not their mind. It is hard to have this conversation with people on the internet but when it comes to real life, this is the easiest one to prove people are full of shit with. I simply ask - where did George Dubs go to school? What office did he hold before being president? For how long? The same for Clinton. Know what the answer always is? "I don't know, but I just don't trust that Obama guy... and why didn't he show his school stuff/birth certificate/blahblahblahblahblahlblah"
And yes, you are completely, 100% wrong. Quoting papers won't make your point any less wrong. He had more experience than numerous presidents that preceded him. Saying anything different is what we call in the real world, being completely full of shit.
|
On October 25 2012 03:56 Recognizable wrote:Show nested quote +On October 25 2012 03:48 Swazi Spring wrote:On October 25 2012 03:42 jdsowa wrote:
The American people are naturally conservative. Conservative in the sense of wanting to preserve the status quo.
The average voter is a middle-aged person who just wants to go to and from work, take their kids to soccer practice and come home and fall alseep in front of the TV without any hassles along the way. They don't want government supports taken away, they don't want the concept of marriage as they know it to change overnight, and they don't want to worry that other countries might attack us.
If a politician proposes any policies that would even possibly suggest to threaten that lifestyle with even a very slight hiccup, then the average voter will simply reject that politician.
The two party system completely covers the spectrum of acceptable mainstream politics, and exceeds it in many cases. The fact that it exceeds it at all--that there are Democrats and Republicans that have views that lie far outside of the mainstream--is evidence that a national 3rd party candidate can never truly be viable. You can buy TV time and generate temporary amusement, but a majority will never cast their vote for you.
Since a national politician can't afford to express too many views outside of the status quo, they have to spend a great deal of their time pretending. And since each guy does an equal share of pretending, and because their policies can't diverge too far from the mainstream, the American people make their decision based on which guy is more charismatic while still being adequately presidential. Ultimately, Barack Obama is that guy. That was a pretty interesting and mostly accurate post, but Obama has been pretty radical for someone who "represents the status quo" as you suggested. Universal healthcare, banning guns, amnesty for illegals, and abandoning our long-time allies are pretty radical ideas that are far-removed from the mainstream political discourse. You are so uninformed it hurts my eyes. Obama has been very pro-guns.
You should really do some research before you start calling other people "uninformed."
|
Intrade odds are actually higher for Obama right now than they were this morning (pre-Trump "bombshell"). Romney winning is just vacillation on Ohio, as near as I can tell, and people trying to cash in.
Edit: I suspect a few people just jumped the gun on a Rasmussen Ohio poll showing a tie.
|
On October 25 2012 01:32 Swazi Spring wrote:Here's the video: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=MgOq9pBkY0IIt sounds like a reasonable offer to me. I only hope that Obama releases all of the papers he claims to have written in college.
Obama should just respond to Trump with: As President of the United States, I do not negotiate with terrorists.
Seriously. If Trump wants to donate to a charity, he can do that without trying to pull on political strings and jerk our fucking president around. What's next? First Lady pics in a thong for ten million dollars?
Trump's a jackass and an ignoramus when it comes to not letting go of stupid situations. He just wants the limelight, and thinking that someone has something to hide just because he won't entertain stupid and manipulative requests is missing the point. Trump's not being charitable; he's trying to blackmail Obama with non-existent bullshit by providing a lose-lose situation for him. Either Obama has to continue to show credibility on every single thing he's ever done (which takes away from campaign focus- not to mention the fact that he's still leading our country- and who said that our president has to check in with Trump?), or he looks like he's hiding something? Bullshit. Just don't play ball.
Also... Trump says "to my satisfaction"... = impossible anyway. Loophole -.-' And then Trump would just blame Obama for half-assing it.
|
On October 25 2012 04:01 Swazi Spring wrote:Show nested quote +On October 25 2012 03:56 Recognizable wrote:On October 25 2012 03:48 Swazi Spring wrote:On October 25 2012 03:42 jdsowa wrote:
The American people are naturally conservative. Conservative in the sense of wanting to preserve the status quo.
The average voter is a middle-aged person who just wants to go to and from work, take their kids to soccer practice and come home and fall alseep in front of the TV without any hassles along the way. They don't want government supports taken away, they don't want the concept of marriage as they know it to change overnight, and they don't want to worry that other countries might attack us.
If a politician proposes any policies that would even possibly suggest to threaten that lifestyle with even a very slight hiccup, then the average voter will simply reject that politician.
The two party system completely covers the spectrum of acceptable mainstream politics, and exceeds it in many cases. The fact that it exceeds it at all--that there are Democrats and Republicans that have views that lie far outside of the mainstream--is evidence that a national 3rd party candidate can never truly be viable. You can buy TV time and generate temporary amusement, but a majority will never cast their vote for you.
Since a national politician can't afford to express too many views outside of the status quo, they have to spend a great deal of their time pretending. And since each guy does an equal share of pretending, and because their policies can't diverge too far from the mainstream, the American people make their decision based on which guy is more charismatic while still being adequately presidential. Ultimately, Barack Obama is that guy. That was a pretty interesting and mostly accurate post, but Obama has been pretty radical for someone who "represents the status quo" as you suggested. Universal healthcare, banning guns, amnesty for illegals, and abandoning our long-time allies are pretty radical ideas that are far-removed from the mainstream political discourse. You are so uninformed it hurts my eyes. Obama has been very pro-guns. You should really do some research before you start calling other people "uninformed."
You really should learn how proper "research" works. You've posted source material of two kinds; obvious hack blog articles or pieces of highly interpretative news. Do you really think "OnThe Issues.org" is a reputable site? Do you really think Nile Gardner is an unbiased reporter? Do you know why that stupid AP editorial on "knowing" Obama is only hosted on google news?
|
On October 25 2012 03:48 Swazi Spring wrote:Show nested quote +On October 25 2012 03:42 jdsowa wrote:
The American people are naturally conservative. Conservative in the sense of wanting to preserve the status quo.
The average voter is a middle-aged person who just wants to go to and from work, take their kids to soccer practice and come home and fall alseep in front of the TV without any hassles along the way. They don't want government supports taken away, they don't want the concept of marriage as they know it to change overnight, and they don't want to worry that other countries might attack us.
If a politician proposes any policies that would even possibly suggest to threaten that lifestyle with even a very slight hiccup, then the average voter will simply reject that politician.
The two party system completely covers the spectrum of acceptable mainstream politics, and exceeds it in many cases. The fact that it exceeds it at all--that there are Democrats and Republicans that have views that lie far outside of the mainstream--is evidence that a national 3rd party candidate can never truly be viable. You can buy TV time and generate temporary amusement, but a majority will never cast their vote for you.
Since a national politician can't afford to express too many views outside of the status quo, they have to spend a great deal of their time pretending. And since each guy does an equal share of pretending, and because their policies can't diverge too far from the mainstream, the American people make their decision based on which guy is more charismatic while still being adequately presidential. Ultimately, Barack Obama is that guy. That was a pretty interesting and mostly accurate post, but Obama has been pretty radical for someone who "represents the status quo" as you suggested. Universal healthcare, banning guns, amnesty for illegals, and abandoning our long-time allies are pretty radical ideas that are far-removed from the mainstream political discourse.
I think something like 65% of Americans favor universal healthcare. People don't turn down free shit. So that's actually not such a 'courageous' position to take.
His private position on guns might be a complete ban, but his public position is to ban semi-autos but keep handguns and rifles legal to preserve the 2nd amendment. I think that's probably pretty much a reflection of mainstream thought. Most people don't see the value of semi-autos.
The mainstream opinion on illegals is let's be tough and protect our borders, and let's not do anything crazy like let them get drivers license or let them vote, but if they're working and have established a family, then let them be. I think that's reflective of Obama's public position.
In the most recent debate he pretended to claim that Israel was an important ally and that we had their back. So regardless of what his actions or true feelings are, the important thing is that he stated the status quo position.
|
On October 25 2012 04:06 DarkPlasmaBall wrote:Obama should just respond to Trump with: As President of the United States, I do not negotiate with terrorists.
Seriously. If Trump wants to donate to a charity, he can do that without trying to pull on political strings and jerk our fucking president around. What's next? First Lady pics in a thong for ten million dollars? Trump's a jackass and an ignoramus when it comes to not letting go of stupid situations. He just wants the limelight, and thinking that someone has something to hide just because he won't entertain stupid and manipulative requests is missing the point. Trump's not being charitable; he's trying to blackmail Obama with non-existent bullshit by providing a lose-lose situation for him. Either Obama has to continue to show credibility on every single thing he's ever done (which takes away from campaign focus- not to mention the fact that he's still leading our country- and who said that our president has to check in with Trump?), or he looks like he's hiding something? Bullshit. Just don't play ball. Also... Trump says "to my satisfaction"... = impossible anyway. Loophole -.-' And then Trump would just blame Obama for half-assing it.
I like how you reposted when no one responded to you.
Anyway, I don't understand how there isn't more discussion to these emails from Reuters.
|
On October 25 2012 03:58 Swazi Spring wrote:Show nested quote +On October 25 2012 03:50 upperbound wrote:On October 25 2012 03:48 Swazi Spring wrote:On October 25 2012 03:42 jdsowa wrote:
The American people are naturally conservative. Conservative in the sense of wanting to preserve the status quo.
The average voter is a middle-aged person who just wants to go to and from work, take their kids to soccer practice and come home and fall alseep in front of the TV without any hassles along the way. They don't want government supports taken away, they don't want the concept of marriage as they know it to change overnight, and they don't want to worry that other countries might attack us.
If a politician proposes any policies that would even possibly suggest to threaten that lifestyle with even a very slight hiccup, then the average voter will simply reject that politician.
The two party system completely covers the spectrum of acceptable mainstream politics, and exceeds it in many cases. The fact that it exceeds it at all--that there are Democrats and Republicans that have views that lie far outside of the mainstream--is evidence that a national 3rd party candidate can never truly be viable. You can buy TV time and generate temporary amusement, but a majority will never cast their vote for you.
Since a national politician can't afford to express too many views outside of the status quo, they have to spend a great deal of their time pretending. And since each guy does an equal share of pretending, and because their policies can't diverge too far from the mainstream, the American people make their decision based on which guy is more charismatic while still being adequately presidential. Ultimately, Barack Obama is that guy. That was a pretty interesting and mostly accurate post, but Obama has been pretty radical for someone who "represents the status quo" as you suggested. Universal healthcare, banning guns, amnesty for illegals, and abandoning our long-time allies are pretty radical ideas that are far-removed from the mainstream political discourse. I've yet to see any evidence of either of these. Prior to running for president, Obama voted in favor of several gun control laws and made several anti-gun statements, ranging from a complete ban on hand-guns to a complete ban on semi-automatic guns to a complete ban on "assault weapons" to making it so you can only buy one handgun a month, and much much more. He also said that he disagrees with DC vs. Heller. He also said that he is opposed to the right to carry. As president he said he is going to re-instate the (now-expired) Federal Assault Weapons Ban and that he wanted "stricter gun control law," but he didn't elaborate on what he meant by that. He abandoned the United Kingdom (our closest ally) and sided with Argentina: http://blogs.telegraph.co.uk/news/nilegardiner/100162100/the-obama-administration-knifes-britain-yet-again-over-the-falklands/He also abandoned Israel and sided with Palestine: http://www.cnn.com/2011/POLITICS/05/19/obama.israel.palestinians/index.html
Holy shit that is mind blowing
An american president saying that England doesn't have a right to own colonial territories on the other side of the atlantic ocean? That is so far from the values this country was founded on that I literally just fell off my seat.
And holy fucking cuntwagons he said that Israel should negotiate with Palestine in a manner which leaves them both as sovereign states?!?! COLOR ME RED MOTHERFUCKER, I'M GONNA VOTE IN THIS ELECTION! THIS CANNOT BE!
User was warned for this post
|
|
|
|
|
|
EPT
