463 replies to this topic

[Hurlshot]

So I just watched George Stephanopoulos interview Michelle Bachmann, and it was a softball interview, but she still came across terribly. I get that you need to criticize the opposite party leader, but you should have an actual plan for what you would do differently. She also didn't seem to really understand a few of the questions. It was a bit of a nightmare.

So why can't the Republicans come up with some decent candidates? I mean someone that appeals to people outside of the republican party. John McCain was a step in the right direction, he has always been candid and smart, and willing to work with democrats to move the country forward. For some reason they decided to pair him with Sarah Palin, who couldn't even finish her term as governor of Alaska. For some reason her name keeps getting mentioned as a candidate, even though she is more of a reality TV star than a politician these days.

Mitt Romney seems to be the frontrunner here, and he does seem to have some positive qualities. I'll have to watch him a bit more, the only concern I have is whether he will allow his Mormon background to interfere with his leadership. I'm very tolerant of beliefs, but after watching the Mormon church funnel millions into the Prop 8 campaign, spreading misinformation and outright lies along the way, I need to be convinced he can separate himself from that influence.

I just don't understand why we can't get a decent candidate here. The country is fragmented right now, we've got major economic issues. I'm not a big fan of Barack Obama, he has not impressed me and he has failed to bring the country together. It is a polarized nation. So why do we keep getting polarizing figures running for president? Somebody needs to come along and get these folks to work together. Right now it is just ugly.

[Tale]

I'd love to vote for McCain. If he can get detached from the corpse that is Palin. And if he'll just bleeding stop flipping over to the extreme end of the GOP every time someone accuses him of not towing the line enough. Be who you are, man! But I simply can't trust him. He seems too willing to fall to peer pressure on any subject that's not torture related.

[Hurlshot]

I'd love to vote for McCain. If he can get detached from the corpse that is Palin. And if he'll just bleeding stop flipping over to the extreme end of the GOP every time someone accuses him of not towing the line enough. Be who you are, man! But I simply can't trust him. He seems too willing to fall to peer pressure on any subject that's not torture related.

He got his big shot at the title, I doubt he will run again. He is also up there in the years. I had been pulling for him since he invited Comedy Central on his tour bus back in 2000. He seems to have lost some of the humor and humility he had back then, but I imagine it would be hard to not become bitter at the way things played out for him.

I really hope Palin was not his choice. that she was foisted on him by party leadership.

[Humodour]

Gary Johnson is a pretty strong Libertarian (socially liberal, economically very pro free markets, but likely to side with individuals over corporations). I don't know how vying for president will change him (inevitably he'll become more bat**** crazy to cater to the Republican base), but one issue he won't budge on is that he supports marijuana legalisation on a federal level. So clearly he's got views and he's willing to defend those views, even if unpopular with many in his base.

Mitt Romney acknowledges that humans cause climate change and that humans need to act to prevent climate change from destroying the planet. The Republican base hates him for this, as they're all bat**** crazy and think climate change doesn't exist.

Mitt Romney is also the favoured candidate among Republicans, as well as the candidate who voters in general (i.e. non-Republicans) would be most willing to vote for over Obama.

[Humodour]

I guess what I'm saying is, it looks like Americans will actually have a decent election this time around. Some nice choices for Republican candidates with some real reasons to vote for them. And that's just Republicans. You certainly didn't have that situation last time (gosh, has it been 4 years already since I started tracking the US presidential election?). And frankly, neither did Australians in our most recent election, which was bloody awful bollocks.

Actually, I say "And that's just Republicans", but really it is ONLY Republicans. The Democrat candidate is set in stone - Obama. I guess that means this will be quite a different election from the outset. The challenge for Obama is to state some new things he stands for, because Mitt Romney could easily make this an election about climate change and win, and it would hold extra weight as well in the vein of only Nixon could go to China.

Edited by Krezack, 14 June 2011 - 09:10 AM.

[Wrath of Dagon]

I really hope Palin was not his choice. that she was foisted on him by party leadership.

lol, there's no such thing as party leadership. The presidential candidate or president is the party leadership. The decision was all his, you can see why he has a reputation for being somewhat eccentric and erratic.

[Volourn]

"Mitt Romney acknowledges that humans cause climate change and that humans need to act to prevent climate change from destroying the planet."

But, this is a myth. Climate change is not destroying the planet. The worse it will do will make it uninhabitable for humans but it is not 'destroying' the planet. Why do people try to claim otherwise? The earth has been around for way longer than us pitfiul shiort lived humans. The arrogance to claim that something we do can destroy it is completely and utterly lauhable.

Climate change exists and humans can midly cause it to occur but it will NOT destroy the planet.

I really don't see a republican winning this election unless Obama completely screws his platform up.

[Tale]

I wish Ron Paul had a more serious chance. He's the only Republic candidate I believe is actually for small government. I'm not a free market personal, personally, but I can recognize the value of the ideal. So I can get past that for voting. But I can't get past this need the Republican party has for trying to regulate the american family. That's about as big brother as I can imagine.

The first Republican that is willing to go against his party and state that he favors gay marriage, while also having a genuine chance of winning, I'd vote for him. But I fear that's an inherent contradiction.

[Morgoth]

Doesn't really matter who wins.

Republicans or Democrats, Gambinos or Bananas?

The Titanic will sink anyway. Enjoy the sight.

[GreasyDogMeat]

Brother, McCain did more to lose the election than Sarah Palin. Every Republican I know, and I know quite a few, had to hold their nose last election voting for McCain. 'Why not vote for Obama. We're getting a democrat either way'. This was of course before they knew just how flaming left he was.

[Humodour]

If I were an America I would probably vote for Mitt Romney - predicated on IF he sought a mandate for tackling climate change by making it an election issue after winning the Republican party endorsement for president (which he is likely to do). Otherwise I would stick with Obama. Status quo sure beats a crazy from the Republican side running the country, I think you'll agree Hurlshot.

Mormon shmormon. They're a nutjob religion (true for religions in general, not just Mormonism), but Romney is independent, business-minded, and frankly, mariijuana is going to be legalised worldwide within 20 years anyway, so who cares if the Mormon church opposes it?

EDIT: Thinking about the economy, frankly, what America needs right now is a president who is socially progressive and fiscally austere. To me that sounds like some form of big L libertarianism with an egalitarian touch is required.

Mitt Romney fits the bill. A republican with business leanings who architected his own state's universal healthcare system. If this were an Australian election, he would win hands down.

Edited by Krezack, 14 June 2011 - 09:24 AM.

[Hurlshot]

Obama has had seriously low approval ratings for most of his term, so I really don't know how good his chances are. Of course I also thought John Kerry and his purple hearts were a shoe in to beat Bush early on in '04, so what do I know!

I just haven't seen Obama do enough to warrant my vote. He needed to build bridges between the parties, and instead they seem even further apart than 4 years ago. His big health care plan looks like it will be tied up all over the place. Regardless of whether you agree or disagree with the policy, it is hard to imagine it will be successful with so much opposition. The military situation hasn't changed much. The civil rights movements have moved slowly. The job outlook is still very murky as well, and the economic recovery seems pretty natural, not necessarily driven by an administration.

[Humodour]

The best thing Obama has done for your country, and I don't say this lightly, because it's a huge deal, is to reset America's relationship with the ENTIRE rest of the world. Especially the Western and Islamic worlds. Because, seriously guys, everyone everywhere was kind of starting to lose a lot of faith with you after the whole Bush debacle.

So yeah, I get that he has just kept the machine going economically, nothing more, but that in and of itself is somewhat of an achievement. It's something Bush sure failed at.

Australians prefer Republican presidents because it's like an iron-clad guarantee that, at least for that president's term, Australia will always be protected from invasion, and successfully. And given our history with Indonesia and now China, and our extreme wealth relative to our neighbours, that is a very pressing concern in my society's psyche. But even so, we always breathe a sigh of relief when a Democrat gets in, because they just tend to be more moderate, down to earth, and seek consensus building more of the time.

Edited by Krezack, 14 June 2011 - 09:53 AM.

[Volourn]

"The best thing Obama has done for your country, and I don't say this lightly, because it's a huge deal, is to reset America's relationship with the ENTIRE rest of the world. Especially the Western and Islamic worlds. Because, seriously guys, everyone everywhere was kind of starting to lose a lot of faith with you after the whole Bush debacle."

L0LZ

[Tale]

He needed to build bridges between the parties, and instead they seem even further apart than 4 years ago.

I honestly believe he tried. He gave lots of concessions. And that fact is probably the strongest criticism of him on the left. I can't blame that failure on him. If I were to vote based on the need to build bridges, I'd just hope for a different Democrat. It's clear the Republicans will have no part in it.

[GreasyDogMeat]

The best thing Obama has done for your country, and I don't say this lightly, because it's a huge deal, is to reset America's relationship with the ENTIRE rest of the world. Especially the Western and Islamic worlds. Because, seriously guys, everyone everywhere was kind of starting to lose a lot of faith with you after the whole Bush debacle.

So yeah, I get that he has just kept the machine going economically, nothing more, but that in and of itself is somewhat of an achievement.

Australians prefer Republican presidents because it's like an iron-clad guarantee that, at least for that president's term, Australia will always be protected from invasion, and successfully. And given our history with Indonesia and now China, that is a very pressing concern in my society's psyche. But even so, we always breathe a sigh of relief when a Democrat gets in, because they just tend to be more moderate, down to earth, and seek consensus building more of the time.

All he has managed to do is make us look weaker and embolden our enemies.

[Rosbjerg]

^ your enemies? please - no nation, even if your president was a wuss, would dare to attack. They would have the entire west against them - and for all Europe's soft diplomatic ideals, if it's total war, we have the industry and know-how to beat your enemies to a pulp with you.

It is a polarized nation. So why do we keep getting polarizing figures running for president?

Most likely because the parties think that this is what the people wants.. If bashing your opponent gets votes, then it's gonna be taken to an extreme - kinda like the free market. It won't stop until the market is saturated. It's the same over here - reality TV and game shows have made TV and politics more about show than substance.

[Humodour]

"The best thing Obama has done for your country, and I don't say this lightly, because it's a huge deal, is to reset America's relationship with the ENTIRE rest of the world. Especially the Western and Islamic worlds. Because, seriously guys, everyone everywhere was kind of starting to lose a lot of faith with you after the whole Bush debacle."

L0LZ

Based on Gallup's extensive polling of the attitudes of societies around the world to America before and after Obama, I know for a fact that I am right and you, Volourn, as is so often the case, are wrong.

[Humodour]

Oh, and the reason why Americans keep getting polarising presidents is simple: your primary voting systems for the individual political parties mean each party's favoured candidate is going to be a guy who caters to his base the most (chooses the most populist stances) so they choose him as their candidate. To the average person this translates as: we've got a choice between two extremists. Combine this with lack of compulsory voting, so the average American decides not to even participate in your democracy, and weeeee!

The system works okay in the grand scheme, but it could be re-worked to run more smoothly (e.g. open up primaries to all voters, regardless of political affiliation).

[Humodour]

^ your enemies? please - no nation, even if your president was a wuss, would dare to attack. They would have the entire west against them - and for all Europe's soft diplomatic ideals, if it's total war, we have the industry and know-how to beat your enemies to a pulp with you.

Frankly, I think modern Europe has the industry, know-how, population size and economic stability to beat even America to a pulp.

Well, actually, both continents would be a pulp due to thermonuclear war and the lack of an economy after the fact, but still, you get the point. Maybe.