President Obama

[Calax]

If Obama Wins, This shall be america! (Sayeth Republicans)

 

If Romney wins, this shall be America! (Sayeth Democrats)

[Nepenthe]

I saw that earlier, it sickens me that him and "Legitimate Rape" guy is on a ****ING SCIENCE COMITY.

 

I googled this and found this article about it. Pretty lol. "he believes abortion is justified in cases of rape and replies that rape does not result in pregnancy."

 

Always when I read such stuff, it comes from republicans. Are democrats in the US talking the same shait or is it only a republician thing? I mean, this stuff is so crazy, I can't believe that the US is "the best and mighty country" when such stuff comes up. If a politician in germany would even just hint at something like this, his career would be pretty much over.

And that's what terrifies me about American politics. Normally, when I see two opposing viewpoints, I can be fairly confident that the truth will be somewhere close to the middle of the two. But in the US political discourse, this does not seem to apply. In fact, I occasionally feel that somebody is intentionally playing the system in an attempt to confuse people who think like I normally do.

 

Of course the way corporations succeed in brainwashing people in voting against their own advatage is another thing that I find absolutely terrifying, even if I'm a lobbyist myself.

[Humodour]

Is it weird that I really don't care much anymore? I mean, I'm voting against Romney because it seems that the only thing he actually believes in is that he should be president, but at the moment I don't care who wins.

 

That is good. People make way too much about who is in office, these guys are very limited in what they can do.

 

Which party wins the presidency dictates the entire course of political discourse for the next 4 years (and often waaaay beyond - e.g. Reagan and Bush all the damage they did domestically and worldwide). As well as controlling all the powers of the executive branch.

 

Don't you tell me it doesn't matter. That's wishful thinking and highly ignorant. Mate, you KNOW that the executive has power - your bloody constitution even enshrines a large minority of those powers (the other majority being taken forcibly by the executive, such as Bush's illegal warrantless wiretapping).

Edited October 15, 2012 by Krezack

[Humodour]

If Obama Wins, This shall be america! (Sayeth Republicans)

 

If Romney wins, this shall be America! (Sayeth Democrats)

 

Are you that gullible? On the one hand you've got clear evidence to go by that the Republican party really does cause your country immense damage - take a look at how the Bush administration raped your country and caused the GFC, and then take a look at how all the recent Democratic administrations have NOT done that.

 

Seems pretty obvious that one of the parties is telling the truth and the other is lying. And the liars are the Republicans. You think bat**** crazy tea baggers are going to be any GOOD for your country?!

[Calax]

If Obama Wins, This shall be america! (Sayeth Republicans)

 

If Romney wins, this shall be America! (Sayeth Democrats)

 

Are you that gullible? On the one hand you've got clear evidence to go by that the Republican party really does cause your country immense damage - take a look at how the Bush administration raped your country and caused the GFC, and then take a look at how all the recent Democratic administrations have NOT done that.

 

Seems pretty obvious that one of the parties is telling the truth and the other is lying. And the liars are the Republicans. You think bat**** crazy tea baggers are going to be any GOOD for your country?!

 

There is no denying that a Republican administration would do serious damage to the public image of America, and could lead to bad things. But they'd have to be mystically bad to take things from just economic and diplomatic issues being bad to "The Mississippi dried up, Kansas is Barren, and tall vegetation is gone for most of the country" as if they're Scar from the Lion King.

[AGX-17]

If Obama Wins, This shall be america! (Sayeth Republicans)

 

If Romney wins, this shall be America! (Sayeth Democrats)

 

Are you that gullible? On the one hand you've got clear evidence to go by that the Republican party really does cause your country immense damage - take a look at how the Bush administration raped your country and caused the GFC, and then take a look at how all the recent Democratic administrations have NOT done that.

 

Seems pretty obvious that one of the parties is telling the truth and the other is lying. And the liars are the Republicans. You think bat**** crazy tea baggers are going to be any GOOD for your country?!

 

The Democrats just are the other side of the political coin. Obama chose Wall Street goons to run the financial system right after those very goons ruined the financial system in 2007. All politicians make promises they can't keep. They're all liars by default. Some do more good than others, but ultimately they're driven by ambition and a desire for power. The people who really want to do good are at the grassroots helping others in their communities, devoting themselves to altruism (a crime unforgivable by Libertarians.) The ruling class is the ruling class, it doesn't matter which faction of the ruling class is which. It was true in ancient Egypt, ancient Rome, medieval (any fiefdom you care to name,) and it is today.

[Nepenthe]

The Democrats just are the other side of the political coin. Obama chose Wall Street goons to run the financial system right after those very goons ruined the financial system in 2007.

"I want the financial system to be run by people who aren't bankers" tops even "we have to tax the rich more" (and "I want an open relationship!") on the list of things that gets infinitely more complicated when you try to execute it in practice instead of just as a populist war cry.

 

The only thing you can really do is try to regulate them and attempt to prevent "too big to fail" in some way. I mean, I know people who work in AIG, they're not worse or better than anybody else (they tend to have a dry sense of humour I appreciate, though), and they also believe that their "financial products" department was a bunch of colossal ****ups.

[AGX-17]

The Democrats just are the other side of the political coin. Obama chose Wall Street goons to run the financial system right after those very goons ruined the financial system in 2007.

"I want the financial system to be run by people who aren't bankers" tops even "we have to tax the rich more" (and "I want an open relationship!") on the list of things that gets infinitely more complicated when you try to execute it in practice instead of just as a populist war cry.

 

The only thing you can really do is try to regulate them and attempt to prevent "too big to fail" in some way. I mean, I know people who work in AIG, they're not worse or better than anybody else (they tend to have a dry sense of humour I appreciate, though), and they also believe that their "financial products" department was a bunch of colossal ****ups.

 

That's the nature of Corporation. Everyone can defer responsibility and say "it wasn't my fault!" Depending on how bad the situation, the offending employees will be given a bigger bonus relative to the scale of the disaster (bigger losses = bigger bonuses,) and the CEO's golden parachute might be replaced with platinum.

[alanschu]

Are you that gullible? On the one hand you've got clear evidence to go by that the Republican party really does cause your country immense damage - take a look at how the Bush administration raped your country and caused the GFC, and then take a look at how all the recent Democratic administrations have NOT done that.

 

Calax's pictures has nothing to do with gullibility. It's the way partisan groups see the country going if the other faction wins. That's the way many see it. Republicans see Obamacare type stuff as being on the road to financial ruin and the collapse of the economy. Democrats see Romney's "platform" as being on that will also lead to financial ruin and the collapse of the economy. Whether or not this will actually happen doesn't prevent large groups on both sides to believe that it will.

[alanschu]

devoting themselves to altruism (a crime unforgivable by Libertarians.)

 

Well, I identify myself mostly as a Libertarian and don't think that this statement is true in the slightest.

[Malcador]

You're a rarity then, well at least online, a lot of them fit that quote in Green Mars about anarchists that want police protection from their slaves

[AGX-17]

devoting themselves to altruism (a crime unforgivable by Libertarians.)

 

Well, I identify myself mostly as a Libertarian and don't think that this statement is true in the slightest.

 

Then you're apparently an exception to the rule, because the gospel of Ayn Rand is the most-cited platform of Libertarians. To her credit, Ayn Rand hated politicians, especially the ones who drew inspiration from her. That's the only good thing I can ever say about Ayn Rand.

Edited October 15, 2012 by AGX-17

[alanschu]

I'm not up on the "history" of Libertarianism, so maybe I'm not a "hardliner."

 

For me, being a Libertarian usually means that I am socially progressive, and financially conservative. I have little issue with all the social issues that conservative parties want to bring up (e.g. abortion) and feel that if women want that right, they should be free to have it. I should be able to speak my mind without fear of state persecution and so forth.

 

Financially, I appreciate balanced budgets. Where I qualify myself as being "mostly" a Libertarian, is that I actually am okay with universal public funding in a couple of areas: health and education. Health care is orders of magnitude cheaper with early prevention, and I think that the benefits of universal healthcare outstrip the negatives. Primary and Secondary education I think are also important, in many ways because such things are an investment in the future, and there are also other correlations such as education vs. crime rates and other things like that. I also feel that the cycle is self-fulfilling if parents are unable to afford education for their children.

 

Post-secondary education I do not believe should be universal, however. At this point people are becoming adults, and while I don't have an issue with subsidization (the total cost IS expensive), free post-secondary leads to oversaturation of classes filled with people that "aren't really sure if they want to be there." Granted this is still a case during primary and secondary schooling, I think the situation is different because there are other socialization types of factors that I think are more useful from primary/secondary schooling where their attendance is more beneficial, compared to post-secondary education.

 

Furthermore, and this is speaking purely from personal experience, is that I feel I benefited greatly from University once I had to pay for it myself. My first year of University came on scholarships and presented no real cost to myself. I flunked out. After growing up a bit, I wanted to return, and suddenly I was ponying up 4 to 5 thousand in tution, on top of housing expenses as I moved out. I sure as heck did NOT want to waste that investment. I was on the Dean's List (which appropriately got me scholarship money haha).

 

 

So despite all that, I still happily give money to charities. Often in the form of sponsorship of a friend that is taking part in some sort of event. I typically run in the Underwear Affair run in Edmonton, which requires $300 in donations to cancer research in order to compete. A friend of mine ran in it this year (I wasn't able to), but I still put in $100 for a donation to it. For someone still finding financial equilibrium as I transition into a career, it's not as though it was a trivial amount of money. I've also helped out friends (and received help from them) that have found themselves in financial hardship. Especially my parents as my Dad needed to go through a career change at the age of 61 as his small computer store proved to be too small and no longer economically viable. A realization that he made probably 2 or 3 years too late.

[alanschu]

This made me chuckle:

 

http://www.washingtonpost.com/blogs/election-2012/wp/2012/10/15/charity-president-unhappy-about-paul-ryan-soup-kitchen-photo-op/

[Malcador]

Man, I'm losing my faith in politicians being honest people.

[Morgoth]

Man, I'm losing my faith in politicians being honest people.

 

Losing? You meant "already lost", I presume.

[Meshugger]

The problem with corporations would immediately disappear the moment that you take away them legal right as a "person". Suddenly, people within the corporation would be personally accountable for the actions of the corporation as a whole.

 

I know, i am dreamer, but hey....

[Hurlshort]

Man, I'm losing my faith in politicians being honest people.

 

Losing? You meant "already lost", I presume.

 

[Walsingham]

I think it's both excessively naive and cynical to ascribe bad politics to a mysterious cabal of ****bags. They are players in, and products of a game in which the electorate are also players. They are no more and no less to blame than we are.

 

It is my belief, shaped over thel ast few months, that if we want better political options then we have to both increase outr capacity for critical thinking, and to attempt simplification of the issues. By which I mean simplifying the mechanisms of government: tax codes, penal codes, IT. If we could do that we might have some hope of getting some less shriekingly hysterical reaction to the issues, and rely less on nutbag poltical movements or apathy.

[alanschu]

I'm not watching live, but most people seem to think that Obama has "come out swinging" this debate.

[Calax]

He did... it was pretty impressive.

 

That's the first time I think I've ever seen Obama get REALLY pissed off (about Libya and the assertion that he was not taking responsibility)

[Blodhemn]

The whole Libyan thing has been handled horribly in all facets, even in the debate when the moderator stepped in, she essentially said that they're both right, but Obama took the play as if he were right. Bizarre and confusing.

[Meshugger]

I heard on the news that Obama was better this time, but not as overpowering as Romney was in the previous debate. Also, this Libya issue seems to confuse a lot of people since i also heard that they (the moderator, Obama and Romney) were all wrong to a certain degree. What's the deal here really?

 

Opinions from fellow americans perhaps?

[Hurlshort]

Americans don't watch the debates silly. We just trust or news source about how it went down, either Fox News, MSNBC, or Jon Stewart.

[Calax]

The question on Libya was effectively "Who was responsible for the decrease in security before the attacks on the [consulate]?" and Obama fielded it first, saying something more to the effect that he's sorry it happened and he's gonna shoot the guys who did it, and finished by saying he'd never throw out a press release within the hours after the attack to score political points.

 

Romney got up and declared that Obama had failed and was slacking off during the attack (similar to how Bush was accused of the same thing on 9/11). He also stated that it took 6 days for Obama to declare it a terror attack (got fact checked on the TV about it). And that Obama was soft on all the leaders in the region and that He (Romney) would be more hard line and intervene in Libya and Syria on a much rougher basis.

 

Ultimately nobody said who's exact responsibility it was, but Obama did say he's taking responsibility, then got genuinely angry at Romney's comment that he didn't care about those he selected as Ambassadors.