| 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 | ||
|
Smat
United States301 Posts
On April 29 2012 09:54 AcuWill wrote: Would like to play a game again. Guess who won Louisiana. Hint: It's not Mitt Romney. This thread is an interesting look into the mediocrity of thought of the massly educated masses. Lol paul bots... | ||
|
bond1
38 Posts
As for why we seem so polarized, its because America is a much more ideologically diverse land than many countries. This is a result of a history of immigration and geographical size. It is just kind of in our construction to have two main camps. @siliodns/HardlyNever Obama is pretty far left as a person. However, in order to maintain at least some level of popularity he needs to remain off-center as a candidate. Often this is where the distinction comes from when two people have different views on him. Either that or a different scale of right/left like if you're from say Canada or the Netherlands. In America, socialized healthcare is pretty far left. @Blue Panther I couldn't agree more. American ideology is VERY specific to the historical trajectory of America and America's unique experiences. Even major world events like the World Wars and the Cold War have a unique impact on America specifically. American right-wing politics (the more 'American' of the two sides if you will) is heavily based on senses of 'freedom', autonomy, self strength, risk taking, earned excellence, and individualism. Ultimately if you could trace it back to one place it would be the Scotch-Irish that resembles this ideology the most. Competition is in our blood, for better or worse, which contributes the very battle-line oriented style of politics we have here. Even our legal system revolves around a conflict between two sides. But yes, it is a difficult concept for most nationals to wrap their minds around (disclaimer: not calling them stupid, hardly that at all) simply because its a very unique mindset born of a very unique blending of values and history. | ||
|
BluePanther
United States2776 Posts
On April 29 2012 10:47 bond1 wrote: @Blue Panther I couldn't agree more. American ideology is VERY specific to the historical trajectory of America and America's unique experiences. Even major world events like the World Wars and the Cold War have a unique impact on America specifically. American right-wing politics (the more 'American' of the two sides if you will) is heavily based on senses of 'freedom', autonomy, self strength, risk taking, earned excellence, and individualism. Ultimately if you could trace it back to one place it would be the Scotch-Irish that resembles this ideology the most. Competition is in our blood, for better or worse, which contributes the very battle-line oriented style of politics we have here. Even our legal system revolves around a conflict between two sides. But yes, it is a difficult concept for most nationals to wrap their minds around (disclaimer: not calling them stupid, hardly that at all) simply because its a very unique mindset born of a very unique blending of values and history. While I don't disagree with you, I was referring more to the significant power held by state governments in the United States. I'm not aware of any other country that has that issue. As a result, most foreigners have a tough time grasping the concept of "state's rights" that Republicans trumpet. Remember, nearly every criminal law in the United States is made by a state government, not a federal government. As are corporate laws, contract laws, civil laws, etc. Republicans in the United States prefer to deal with issues at a state (or local) level (a place where those types of decisions have always been made in the past). The difference is that, in America, the state governments are both capable and , more importantly, adequately equipped to do so. A point you brought up that I feel needs to be stressed more: The splintering of governance to the state level has some important benefits that Europeans in general do not easily see. America is a HUGE country with a lot of people with VERY diverse backgrounds and cultures. By delegating power to lower levels, you let the people rule themselves with more local interests (such as cultural or unique economic needs). States vary greatly in racial makeup, wealth, economy, climate, etc. For example, Delaware is the corporate heart of the world, because that state made the choice to specialize in catering to corporate needs. Meanwhile, heartland states focus on farming subsidies and promoting legislation that is pro-agriculture. This has a lot of benefits to both the locals and the nation as a whole (corporate dollars staying in America and more stable food supply with farming). It is efficient and productive. It is also divisive when the federal government tries to use it's power to change it. Think of it like this. Germany has a law that say you can drink beer. However, France has a law that outlaws beer and says you may only drink wine. Germany wants their culture imposed on France, so they demand that the EU require no state to serve wine. Obviously the French would be livid. That is the difference between Dems and Reps in America. Reps would prefer to let each state do it's own thing, while Dems want "national unity." | ||
|
CajunMan
United States823 Posts
On April 29 2012 10:23 GhandiEAGLE wrote: it says something when just about everybody in smaller and far less successful countries wants Obama re-elected Fixed that for you. | ||
|
fYlddnaHturtDyaWdmAi
Israel157 Posts
| ||
|
ElvisWayCool
United States437 Posts
On April 29 2012 12:48 fYlddnaHturtDyaWdmAi wrote: America needs a leader with strong moral authority. So is that Obama or Romney..? | ||
|
RezChi
Canada2368 Posts
| ||
|
xavra41
United States220 Posts
| ||
|
kwizach
3658 Posts
On April 29 2012 10:14 MountainDewJunkie wrote: Well, Obama broke the vast majority of promises he made 4 years ago, but I think he's still untouchable. No, he didn't. http://www.politifact.com/truth-o-meter/promises/obameter/ | ||
|
1Eris1
United States5797 Posts
On April 29 2012 13:33 kwizach wrote: No, he didn't. http://www.politifact.com/truth-o-meter/promises/obameter/ Well, he didn't keep a majority of his promises either : /. And holy crap, Obama made 501 differnet promises? That sounds really stupid, even for a politician. | ||
|
kwizach
3658 Posts
On April 29 2012 10:20 SpeaKEaSY wrote: How is being proactive and running for delegates "stealing" delegates from other candidates? Ron Paul's supporters are much more dedicated than the senior citizens being bused in to vote for Romney, so they actually stick around to become delegates. Ron Paul supporters are actually working by the rules of the election process; it's the Republican establishment that is breaking rules and committing fraud in order to prevent Ron Paul from obtaining delegates. lol, Romney is by no means popular at all. Pretty much no one outside of like Massachusetts and Utah actually like Romney as a person, they only vote for him because they perceive him to be the person with the best shot at beating Obama. Imagine the following scenario: there are 1000 people voting in a caucus with ten delegates to be awarded. 990 of these people vote for Ron Paul, the last ten for Romney. After the 990 people who voted for Ron Paul end up leaving once the voting is over, the 10 people who voted for Romney take the delegate seats, with the intention of giving their votes to Romney - therefore completely nullifying the entire vote that just took place, that was the entire point of the caucus, and which Ron Paul overwhelmingly won. This is pretty much what's going on in some caucuses (or at least what did go on in some places), except Ron Paul was the one profiting from it rather than Romney/Santorum/etc. If this was happening to Ron Paul, his supporters would be OUTRAGED. | ||
|
kwizach
3658 Posts
On April 29 2012 13:37 1Eris1 wrote: Well, he didn't keep a majority of his promises either : /. And holy crap, Obama made 501 differnet promises? That sounds really stupid, even for a politician. Only 13% have been broken. The promises who were kept aside, most promises are listed under "compromise", "in the works" or "stalled". | ||
|
1Eris1
United States5797 Posts
On April 29 2012 13:46 kwizach wrote: Only 13% have been broken. The promises who were kept aside, most promises are listed under "compromise", "in the works" or "stalled". Yes, but if he promised to have X done by 2012, and it's not done, it is a broken promise, whether or not it's stalled or in the works. Also "compromise" can imply anything thing from got it done but gave up something or got a fraction of it done. I admit I do not know when Obama proposed some of his promises were going to come true, but that list is a bad representation of exactly how he's done. | ||
|
kwizach
3658 Posts
On April 29 2012 13:52 1Eris1 wrote: Yes, but if he promised to have X done by 2012, and it's not done, it is a broken promise, whether or not it's stalled or in the works. Also "compromise" can imply anything thing from got it done but gave up something or got a fraction of it done. I admit I do not know when Obama proposed some of his promises were going to come true, but that list is hardly representative of exactly how he's done. You realize he's not the one passing legislation, right? :p If he does his best to convince Congress to pass a certain policy but they steadily refuse, how is that his fault? | ||
|
1Eris1
United States5797 Posts
On April 29 2012 14:01 kwizach wrote: You realize he's not the one passing legislation, right? :p If he does his best to convince Congress to pass a certain policy but they steadily refuse, how is that his fault? If he's not guranteed to do something, he shouldn't promise something. That's what I hate about most politicians. Just freaking say "I will try to get X done" not "By XXXX I will have done Y". Obviously the majority of the public is pretty ignorant, and so they will often take the word of influential persons as the truth; but if that person is going to give it to them, then I'm going to hold them to it. | ||
|
coverpunch
United States2093 Posts
On April 29 2012 14:01 kwizach wrote: You realize he's not the one passing legislation, right? :p If he does his best to convince Congress to pass a certain policy but they steadily refuse, how is that his fault? That only works for policies in 2011. He had a Democratic majority in Congress in 2009 and 2010 and they still passed very little. Let's be honest, Obama has not been a good president. He started his presidency hoping to be compared to FDR or Lincoln. Now he's just hoping people won't compare him to Carter or Hoover. The important question: can Romney do better? We'll have to see how he does as a politician. The tragedy is that most of the blind rage against the GOP belies the fact that Romney was a productive governor of a heavily Democratic state and was able to compromise on issues that made the state fiscally sound and socially responsible. The current hostile political environment and the brutal Republican primary seems to have given him weak knees - he's turned ashamed of his past successes and he's been forced to suppress most of the qualities that made him a good leader. I would put it this way: the Democrats and Obama deserve to lose. The Republicans do not deserve to win. Romney perhaps doesn't either. | ||
|
DarkPlasmaBall
United States43276 Posts
That made me start to laugh and then I stopped mid-giggle, realizing that we're probably screwed either way. I was like  and then I was like  | ||
|
SHOOG
United States1639 Posts
| ||
|
{CC}StealthBlue
United States41117 Posts
Top Mitt Romney adviser Eric Fehrnstrom claimed that President Obama's auto bailout was the GOP presidential hopeful's idea. Fehrnstrom said Obama followed Romney's course to help the auto industry during an appearance at a Saturday roundtable discussion hosted by the The Washington Post. “His position on the bailout was exactly what President Obama followed,” Fehrnstrom said. "He said, 'If you want to save the auto industry, just don't write them a check. That will seal their doom. What they need to do is go through a managed bankruptcy process.'" "The only economic success that President Obama has had is because he followed Mitt Romney's advice," Fehrnstrom added. Source | ||
|
Defacer
Canada5052 Posts
So now Romney is trying to retroactively take credit for the auto-bailout while denying credit for Obamacare. When is he going to take credit for killing Bin Laden. I'd take this politicking with a grain of salt, honestly. If you're going to pin all blame on the person in charge when things go wrong, they deserve credit when things go right. | ||
| ||
[ Submit Event ] |
|
|
|
CranKy Ducklings
SOOP
herO vs Cure
SC Evo Complete
PassionCraft
BSL: ProLeague
Sziky vs Dienmax
Jimin vs RaNgeD
CSO Cup
Sparkling Tuna Cup
WardiTV Invitational
Online Event
Tenacious Turtle Tussle
[ Show More ] |
|
|
EPT
