February 5, 201214 yr Earlier the question was posed why the US comes up with these nutters and even votes for them. I really can't say myself. But it's one of the reasons I don't live there anymore. I have some facebook friends that date back to high school, when I remember the individuals as being reasonably intelligent and sane. I am assuming that life traumas have driven them beyond reasonable thinking. It's quite sad.
February 5, 201214 yr The presence of nutters in the election process is actually quite healthy. Of course, if one of them becomes president, it's not healthy at all, but it's highly unlikely to happen. We in Britain had our own share, for example Screaming Lord Sutch and the Monster Raving Loony Party, and the splendid gentleman who campaigned for Independence for Cumberland, and more pay for molecatchers. We deal with them appropriately, but they add to the fun of elections. I am not suggesting that any of the Republican hopefuls go quite so far, the more's the pity, but there are also no-hopers among them; I leave it to the Americans to say who.
February 5, 201214 yr Earlier the question was posed why the US comes up with these nutters and even votes for them. I really can't say myself. But it's one of the reasons I don't live there anymore. I have some facebook friends that date back to high school, when I remember the individuals as being reasonably intelligent and sane. I am assuming that life traumas have driven them beyond reasonable thinking. It's quite sad. Forum rules and "culture" forbid me from giving a certain specific example where people have very different views. What some consider sane and natural, others consider freaking nuts. Still others don't care enough to make it an issue. But everyone needs to keep in mind that people have different views on a wide variety of topics and just because they disagree with you doesn't make them unreasonable.
February 5, 201214 yr ^Sorry, but when people can even consider voting for someone like Gingrich, they're off the deep end. What do they think they're getting? Family values? Compassion? Consistency? Integrity? Religion? I mean if you want someone who's friendly to rich people (not that most people who say they want that are anywhere near what 'rich' really means these days)- go ahead and elect Romney or even Obama. The closest motivation that I can see for anyone truly interest in voting for Gingrich is revenge on America for someone's life not working out well. The problem with that is that a lot of those people have, uh, children, family and friends still alive against whom this will work. But a lot of the 'want-a-kook-who-will-hurt-a-lot-of-people-vote' has this kind of self- and other-abusive nature about it, I think, and it's very ugly. I'm not particularly interested on this thread in applying my judgment of US political behaviour to Thais, thanks- different topic, apples and oranges.
February 6, 201214 yr ^Sorry, but when people can even consider voting for someone like Gingrich, they're off the deep end. What do they think they're getting? Family values? Compassion? Consistency? Integrity? Religion? I mean if you want someone who's friendly to rich people (not that most people who say they want that are anywhere near what 'rich' really means these days)- go ahead and elect Romney or even Obama. The closest motivation that I can see for anyone truly interest in voting for Gingrich is revenge on America for someone's life not working out well. The problem with that is that a lot of those people have, uh, children, family and friends still alive against whom this will work. But a lot of the 'want-a-kook-who-will-hurt-a-lot-of-people-vote' has this kind of self- and other-abusive nature about it, I think, and it's very ugly. I'm not particularly interested on this thread in applying my judgment of US political behaviour to Thais, thanks- different topic, apples and oranges. As someone who would likely vote for Gingrich yet would hardly be called off the deep end, let me give you some reasons why others might resent your characterization of us. Newt is an idea man, as compared to our current White House resident. Newt is knowledgeable in all things Congress related and we could certainly use a President that has more experience in that area outside of community organizing. The President should make an attempt to work with Congress and hopefully get laws enacted that would benefit the people and not simply benefit special interest groups such as labor unions, environmentalists, etc. Our current resident has shown no ability to work with Congress but is instead using them as his primary opponent in his four year reelection campaign. Newt is aware of fiscal requirements, having worked in this area in the past. After all he did help Clinton look good during the eight years of his Presidency despite Bill's moral failures and lack of family values. Newt is quite an accomplished extemporaneous speaker. As proof of this I have never seen him use a teleprompter during a speech. Newt respects the Constitution, as opposed to Obama who has repeatedly ignored the Constitution in carrying out his duties. Newt has never bowed to the King of Saudi Arabia or Emperor of Japan. I don't think he can be elected so this might spare you the terror of having all these ugly people (such as myself) voting for him but it is likely we can do worse and the electorate proved that in the last election. Please read my signature and see how I feel.
February 6, 201214 yr So, in other words, we should elect Newt because he is part of the machine that brought us the massive economic failures- the bank failures, the government bailouts, the egregious spending on foreign wars- the leader of the team that shut down our government some time ago- and because he will work well with Congress, since he is the speaker who had to resign in disgrace over ethical issues- and also because he is an 'idea man', not to mention that he likes a 200 year old document (lots of new and contemporary ideas there) and unlike democrats he is good for family values- are you SURE you know anything about this guy?- and unlike most of our republican politicians he doesn't need microphones up his back or lines to memorise. And since he is apparently unaware of protocols involving foreign heads of state (and he would apparently never bow to reigning monarchs, unlike all of our past heads of state of any party). You misread me completely if you think I support Obama. But unfortunately that's about the level of most political thinking in the US- there's a FOOTBALL GAME with TWO TEAMS, and you have to SUPPORT one of them! Go, team, go!!! Thoughts good, slogans baaaaaaad! Feh. Americans deserve Gingrich.
February 6, 201214 yr a 200 year old document (lots of new and contemporary ideas there) I don't have a problem with anything you say as it is a choice....except this. America is a Constitutional Republic not a Democracy Without that 200 year old paper we would be nothing more than mob rule where the 51% may remove all the rights of the other 49% Ideas do not have to be new to be great. Also our constitution allows for amendments. But at the end of the day the Constitution is & hopefully will always be The Supreme Law Of The Land Otherwise we will have State & Federal laws conflicting with each other. We would have a government that has no controls or safety measures in place.
February 6, 201214 yr As an outsider, I look forward with trepidation to any of the Republicans, or Obama, being the next President. Can't your great nation offer anything better? Apparently not.
February 6, 201214 yr As an outsider, I look forward with trepidation to any of the Republicans, or Obama, being the next President. Can't your great nation offer anything better? Apparently not. Actually we have had & will possibly again have a non dem/repub option.....He usually runs Libertarian But lets face it.........While we like to claim other countries are corrupt for their paid for elections... In a sense It is no different here. The one who spends the most does the best.... Sadly the ones that spend the most also owe the most whether they realize it or not going in. I tend to think they are not stupid & know full way the bill will have to be paid if they are elected. Imagine if America limited all Presidential candidates to spending no more than say 100-300K USD campaigning. I imagine the people would see a clearer picture as it would sweep aside all the paid for negative advertising/campaigning They would also show their capabilities at budgeting....an important indicator for when & if they take office.
February 6, 201214 yr So, in other words, we should elect Newt because he is part of the machine that brought us the massive economic failures- the bank failures, the government bailouts, the egregious spending on foreign wars- the leader of the team that shut down our government some time ago- and because he will work well with Congress, since he is the speaker who had to resign in disgrace over ethical issues- and also because he is an 'idea man', not to mention that he likes a 200 year old document (lots of new and contemporary ideas there) and unlike democrats he is good for family values- are you SURE you know anything about this guy?- and unlike most of our republican politicians he doesn't need microphones up his back or lines to memorise. And since he is apparently unaware of protocols involving foreign heads of state (and he would apparently never bow to reigning monarchs, unlike all of our past heads of state of any party). You misread me completely if you think I support Obama. But unfortunately that's about the level of most political thinking in the US- there's a FOOTBALL GAME with TWO TEAMS, and you have to SUPPORT one of them! Go, team, go!!! Thoughts good, slogans baaaaaaad! Feh. Americans deserve Gingrich. I never claimed we should elect Newt for the reasons you cited. You are trying to put words in my mouth. Following your definition however, we should not vote for anybody that has been part of the "machine" in the past. Would that include the current resident of 1600 Pennsylvania Avenue as well? Newt left Congress in 1998 so exactly what votes did he cast in favor of the egregious spending on foreign wars? The Congressional Ethics Committee filed 84 charges against him, with 83 of them later being dropped. The one charge not dropped was a charge of claiming tax-exempt status for a college course run for political purposes. He was reprimanded and fined for this charge but later cleared by the IRS of any related criminal activity. He did not resign over ethical issues as you state. He resigned the Speaker's position due to pressure from his own party leaders but it was not ethics related. He retired after serving his last elected term in 1998. Yes, he led the government shutdown two times while feuding with Clinton over federal expenditures and a balanced budget. Many would contest this action as being a good thing. Please inform us which former President's have bowed to reigning monarchs. That must have slipped my mind. (Ain't alzheimer's a bitch?) Lots of people think the Constitution is a viable document. Mr. Flying described it rather well so I will simply echo his sentiments. Finally, while my vote for Gingrich might lead you to call me a person seeking revenge on America for a failed life, you would be off the mark by at least 180 degrees.
February 6, 201214 yr As an outsider, I look forward with trepidation to any of the Republicans, or Obama, being the next President. Can't your great nation offer anything better? Apparently not. Actually we have had & will possibly again have a non dem/repub option.....He usually runs Libertarian But lets face it.........While we like to claim other countries are corrupt for their paid for elections... In a sense It is no different here. The one who spends the most does the best.... Sadly the ones that spend the most also owe the most whether they realize it or not going in. I tend to think they are not stupid & know full way the bill will have to be paid if they are elected. Imagine if America limited all Presidential candidates to spending no more than say 100-300K USD campaigning. I imagine the people would see a clearer picture as it would sweep aside all the paid for negative advertising/campaigning They would also show their capabilities at budgeting....an important indicator for when & if they take office. The last third party candidate to make a real impact was Ross Perot, and people tell me he was a disaster. Yes, money does seem to play a huge part in US elections. This must distort the issues campaigned for, and the promises a President has to keep when he is elected. The UK has had for many years a system whereby a candidate is limited in the funds he/she spends.. This is carefully audited, and seems to have worked pretty well, but I'm not sure it has produced leaders of a higher calibre. We don't have any limitation on the length of time a person can hold office, but that doesn't seem to matter; they may, like Thatcher, get thrown out by their own party if they're out of sync with current thinking.
February 6, 201214 yr Imagine if America limited all Presidential candidates to spending no more than say 100-300K USD campaigning. I imagine the people would see a clearer picture as it would sweep aside all the paid for negative advertising/campaigning They would also show their capabilities at budgeting....an important indicator for when & if they take office. The candidate doesn't have to be the one spending the money. Just like the Super PACs today are spending it supporting or attacking candidates. The only way around it is to limit free speech during elections. Surely that is worse than The Patriot Act.
February 6, 201214 yr The last third party candidate to make a real impact was Ross Perot, and people tell me he was a disaster. Ross Perot was a disaster because he took votes away from Bush and gave Clinton the presidency with something like 43% of the vote. In some places that would require a run-off between the top two vote getters. The last 3rd party candidate to make a difference was Ralph Nadar in 2000. Without him, Al Gore would have clearly won the election. So, if Ron Paul runs on a third party ticket, I hope he passes on at least a month before the election. Sorry to say that as I voted for him, but I do not want the election handed to Obama on a silver platter. If he wins it straight up, then the People have spoken. But to GIVE it to him? Ugh.
February 14, 201214 yr Interesting article in the Huffington Post. Political March Madness Will Hillary be Obama's running mate, with Biden going to State if they win? http://www.huffingtonpost.com/marty-kaplan/political-march-madness_b_1273266.html You know, that could almost work.
February 14, 201214 yr The democrats would be almost guaranteed a victory if they ran Hillary for President and had Obama ste down.
February 14, 201214 yr Yes. Omama has done a miserable job and if the economy does not keep improving, there is a good chance that he will lose. However, because no one is crazy about his competition, he also has a pretty good chance of winning.
February 14, 201214 yr Interesting article in the Huffington Post. Political March Madness Will Hillary be Obama's running mate, with Biden going to State if they win? http://www.huffingto..._b_1273266.html You know, that could almost work. Obama has been such an all out failure even this self-admitted right-winger thinks Hillary would be a shoo-income November if she were running. IF she had challenged Obama now, Obama would have tossed in the white flag - much like LBJ back in 1968.
February 14, 201214 yr Obama has been such an all out failure even this self-admitted right-winger thinks Hillary would be a shoo-income November if she were running. IF she had challenged Obama now, Obama would have tossed in the white flag - much like LBJ back in 1968. Just another proof of how beautifully broken the US system is. Why should the system not serve the people's best interest? It is obvious to all that Obama was a big cream of nothing yet his own party will not field a candidate for the people to have an option. Same if a Republican were president....why? It would not be an admission of failure by either party. Instead it would be proof that choice still exists for the people at all elections.
Create an account or sign in to comment