President Obama

[anubite]

Neither candidate had/has articulated a solution to the US's problems, be they economic or foreign policy. The whole election was a farce, as usual. We got nothing done and wasted a whole lot more money doing it.

 

I guess the thing that bothers me most... is Obama is for gay rights, right? He did nothing this term save for stating that he supports gay rights - and then does nothing to push that agenda. Really? Politics is just so baffling to me. How anyone can not be jaded like me at this point, seems alien or insane. These people will promise the world and then sit on their hands, or make the worst decisions under the most nonsensical reasoning (yes Obama, please spin that terrorist attack as them protesting a stupid third-rate movie).

Edited November 7, 2012 by anubite

[Malcador]

To anyone who says he lost the popular vote, look again.

 

Think he was losing as of the time GD wrote that.

 

Trump went koo-koo apparently.

[Blarghagh]

I enjoy the part of Trump's Twitter Rant where he says "the world is laughing at us now" or somesuch, I don't remember the exact quote. Internationally, or at least in Europe, Mitt Romney is regarded as a laughing stock, a backwards cult brainwasher who is inches from legalizing slavery, and it took America electing a black man to finally lessen the image of "all americans are the dumbest rednecks on the planet" that Bush created. Obama is the reason the world isn't laughing at the U.S. anymore.

Edited November 7, 2012 by TrueNeutral

[Volourn]

, "Mitt Romney is regarded as a laughing stock, a backwards cult brainwasher who is inches from legalizing slavery, and it took America electing a black man to finally lessen the image of "all americans are the dumbest rednecks on the planet" that Bush created."

 

This is why I cna't take European and Kanada opinion seriouslyn on this matter. Do tyhey really ebleive that Romney would make slavery legal? L0L Then again, these are the same peons who claimed that Bush was setting himself up to be 'dictator for life' and all that extremist bull.

 

Then again, out of all the white dominated European countries.. how many have had a black leader? L0LZ

[GuybrushWilco]

Yeah, you would have to be very misinformed, or even un-intelligent to honestly believe that Romney would legalize slavery. Aside from the fact that the president does not have that power, there is nothing in Romney's history to suggest that he would be in favor of such a thing. It is really a very ridiculous thing to believe.

[Hurlshort]

I guess the thing that bothers me most... is Obama is for gay rights, right? He did nothing this term save for stating that he supports gay rights - and then does nothing to push that agenda.

 

During his term Don't Ask Don't Tell was repealed, and the executive branch has opted not to defend the Defense of Marriage Act. It's not exactly LBJ and the civil rights movements of the 60's, but it's a step forward from simply ignoring the issues. The bigger victories for gay rights are the states that now have legalized gay marriage.

 

That's really my big issue with the Republican party. I'm a moderate, I even favor a more fiscally conservative approach. I should be an ideal target for voting Republican. But the numbers show tons of people who call themselves moderates voting for Obama. I think it comes down to the Christian conservative base being a huge turn off to younger moderate voters. The republican party needs to distance itself from being the morality police.

[Gorgon]

This is why you should have at least 7 or 8 parties. The Republicans have to cater to wingnuts and it's dragging them down long term as people are starting to get fed up with them.

[Syraxis]

This is why you should have at least 7 or 8 parties. The Republicans have to cater to wingnuts and it's dragging them down long term as people are starting to get fed up with them.

 

You mean have a bunch of single issue focused parties all clamoring for a seat in senate/house? Nah.

 

A viable third party option would go a long way though.

[Calax]

Trump just ranted against Brian Williams for making fun of The Donalds twitter feed.

 

Sounds like the Daily Show is going to have a FUUUUN night with that.

[HoonDing]

Meanwhilst, in the Confederate States.

 

[BruceVC]

I enjoy the part of Trump's Twitter Rant where he says "the world is laughing at us now" or somesuch, I don't remember the exact quote. Internationally, or at least in Europe, Mitt Romney is regarded as a laughing stock, a backwards cult brainwasher who is inches from legalizing slavery, and it took America electing a black man to finally lessen the image of "all americans are the dumbest rednecks on the planet" that Bush created. Obama is the reason the world isn't laughing at the U.S. anymore.

 

I don't agree with that assessment of the USA under Bush, I don't think that is what most Europeans think either. I assume you think the same of the UK under Tony Blair? Bush and some of his policies were disliked but he also had the arduous task of being president during the beginning of the War on Terror. There were many things that were done legitimately that some now say were not justified. Like the invasion of Afghanistan which was perfectly understandable and necessary. I generally object to blanket generalizations about a country or nation, so statements " "all Americans are the dumbest rednecks on the planet" doesn't represent the reality of the Bush era

[Amentep]

This is why you should have at least 7 or 8 parties. The Republicans have to cater to wingnuts and it's dragging them down long term as people are starting to get fed up with them.

 

You mean have a bunch of single issue focused parties all clamoring for a seat in senate/house? Nah.

 

A viable third party option would go a long way though.

 

Or go full on George Washington who advised against a party system at all -

 

I have already intimated to you the danger of parties in the state, with particular reference to the founding of them on geographical discriminations. Let me now take a more comprehensive view, and warn you in the most solemn manner against the baneful effects of the spirit of party, generally.

 

This spirit, unfortunately, is inseparable from our nature, having its root in the strongest passions of the human mind. It exists under different shapes in all governments, more or less stifled, controlled, or repressed; but, in those of the popular form, it is seen in its greatest rankness, and is truly their worst enemy.

 

The alternate domination of one faction over another, sharpened by the spirit of revenge, natural to party dissension, which in different ages and countries has perpetrated the most horrid enormities, is itself a frightful despotism. But this leads at length to a more formal and permanent despotism. The disorders and miseries, which result, gradually incline the minds of men to seek security and repose in the absolute power of an individual; and sooner or later the chief of some prevailing faction, more able or more fortunate than his competitors, turns this disposition to the purposes of his own elevation, on the ruins of Public Liberty.

 

Without looking forward to an extremity of this kind, (which nevertheless ought not to be entirely out of sight,) the common and continual mischiefs of the spirit of party are sufficient to make it the interest and duty of a wise people to discourage and restrain it.

Edited November 7, 2012 by Amentep

[Hurlshort]

I'll never understand why people vote based on a party line. I don't even like to vote based on my Union's line, and that is tied directly to my job.

 

This year when I read through the bio's of my representatives and senators, I looked for people who promised to work with the opposing party to do what was best for the country. I was surprised that they were mostly democrats.

[Gorgon]

Same difference.

 

The only election where personal votes actually matter are municipal elections, and no one cares about them. Otherwise they go to the party for determining mandates.

[Enoch]

I'll never understand why people vote based on a party line. I don't even like to vote based on my Union's line, and that is tied directly to my job.

 

It's a useful shorthand. People may not be especially educated about, say, candidates for the state legislature or county council, but if they know that they're more likely to agree with one party than the other, they can at least make a semi-informed decision. Also, they might care more about the furtherance of particular national or statewide policy initiatives favored by one party or the other than they do about the backgrounds and specific policy statements of individual candidates.

 

 

To Gorgon's comment, a panoply of parties tends to give more power to the wingnuts, not less. The fact that the tea partiers have hurt the GOP this time around is a benefit of big catch-all parties. If they were two clearly separate groups (albeit ones that caucus together on many issues), voter distaste for the extremists wouldn't have had as much of a negative impact on the more moderate party's fortunes. Systems with more institutional support for a wider selection of parties have an alarming tendency to make the Wingnutter Party the crowd that swings the balance of power in the legislature.

[pmp10]

Or go full on George Washington who advised against a party system at all -

IIRC confederacy tried that.

It didn't work out too well.

[Gorth]

I generally object to blanket generalizations about a country or nation, so statements " "all Americans are the dumbest rednecks on the planet" doesn't represent the reality of the Bush era

 

I don't think he implied they were, but it was the image projected during the Bush years. Yes, I lived in Europe during some of those years, He was considered little better than tame string puppet bowing and scraping for his wealthy friends asking how he could divert federal funds to their pockets. Not as brain dead as Dan Quayle, but pretty close. People who can vote such an individual (I won't use the word 'man') for president are of questionable judgement

 

As for the entire Obama/Romney thing, only followed it very superficially, not being particularly interested in politics (and Australia is mostly owned by the Chinese anyway). In my immediate environment, for former is regarded as a man of cooperation, the latter as a man of confrontation. Guess which one is most likely to build working relationships? Of course, people sometimes change their tune after election is over, so what could have been is now entirely hypothetical anyway, at least for the next 4 years.

 

 

Edit: I should probably add, if I had been Australian, I would be red-faced embarrassed by the current crop of politicians. The PM is a backstabbing weasel and the opposition leader a moron, so it's not like there is something to boast about. Really a sad state of affairs.

[Amentep]

Or go full on George Washington who advised against a party system at all -

IIRC confederacy tried that.

It didn't work out too well.

 

Didn't the confederacy as a whole not work out so well, regardless of anything else?

[pmp10]

Or go full on George Washington who advised against a party system at all -

IIRC confederacy tried that.

It didn't work out too well.

 

Didn't the confederacy as a whole not work out so well, regardless of anything else?

Depends on your point of view.

There was always a lot of debate about what was realistically within it's power.

The weakness of it's political institutions is often attributed to breaking with the party system but perhaps there were other causes like secrecy.

[PK htiw klaw eriF]

 

This year when I read through the bio's of my representatives and senators, I looked for people who promised to work with the opposing party to do what was best for the country. I was surprised that they were mostly democrats.

 

I think there was actually a poll out a while ago that showed democrats typically favored compromise and republicans did not. Who would have thought that compromise would have become a partisan issue?

[Hurlshort]

Another telling sign that the Republican party needs to change is the fact that the Libertarian candidate received the most votes in the history of the party. That's kind of like when the Green party was getting a good chunk of votes with Nader, it weakened the Democrats.

[Blodhemn]

, "Mitt Romney is regarded as a laughing stock, a backwards cult brainwasher who is inches from legalizing slavery, and it took America electing a black man to finally lessen the image of "all americans are the dumbest rednecks on the planet" that Bush created."

 

This is why I cna't take European and Kanada opinion seriouslyn on this matter. Do tyhey really ebleive that Romney would make slavery legal? L0L Then again, these are the same peons who claimed that Bush was setting himself up to be 'dictator for life' and all that extremist bull.

 

Then again, out of all the white dominated European countries.. how many have had a black leader? L0LZ

Europeans have no power and it's only going to get worse for them in the future. Discussing US politics must be one of the few ways that they can be heard, otherwise Europe has very litle pull in the world today.

[Gorth]

Yeah, Russia and China looks like the ones who are going to call the shots the next few decades. Kind of a worrying thought really.

[Zoraptor]

Russia? Maybe if they could reabsorb Belarus and Ukraine (and some of the -stans as well), but the only one which is even a slight possibility is Belarus post Lukachenko. Else they'll just stay treading water and dropping back further relative to China. They only have one card (energy) to play on Europe, and they can only play it sparingly lest they give enough incentive for Europe to seek real alternatives.

 

Big thing from this US election is how much of a drag the Tea Party is on the Republicans. Romney actually did well campaigning, and far better than I expected him to, but while the Tea Party may be great at mobilising a certain section of the party base and raising money a lot of their policies are anathema to the swing vote moderates who are essential to actually winning. In particular the Akin/ Mourdock 'controversies' while it may have actually appealed to some core republican backers cannot but have damaged Romney by association with precisely the demographics he needed to win.

[SophosTheWise]

, "Mitt Romney is regarded as a laughing stock, a backwards cult brainwasher who is inches from legalizing slavery, and it took America electing a black man to finally lessen the image of "all americans are the dumbest rednecks on the planet" that Bush created."

 

This is why I cna't take European and Kanada opinion seriouslyn on this matter. Do tyhey really ebleive that Romney would make slavery legal? L0L Then again, these are the same peons who claimed that Bush was setting himself up to be 'dictator for life' and all that extremist bull.

 

Then again, out of all the white dominated European countries.. how many have had a black leader? L0LZ

Europeans have no power and it's only going to get worse for them in the future. Discussing US politics must be one of the few ways that they can be heard, otherwise Europe has very litle pull in the world today.

 

This is exactly one of the reasons, why Europeans laugh at Republicans. It's just really irritating that you guys are either extremely backwards or so self-deluded about your greatness.