mania Posted October 30, 2012 Share Posted October 30, 2012 End of election times bring out the alarmists at their shrillest. If there's something wrong with the US, it's similar to what's wrong with the rest of the 'developed' parts of the world; They think they can borrow money indefinately. Actually I was commenting on the Party system & politics of the US I am aware of the various economic problems. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Jingthing Posted October 30, 2012 Share Posted October 30, 2012 This thread is mainly made up posters who believe either Obama or Romney will be very bad for America and the future of our country. This is the problem These days I do not know of anyone who actually votes for someone they believe in. They all vote against someone but not really for someone. Even the most staunch of each side throughout this thread has pretty much also said the same. Something is really wrong with America & has been wrong for a very long time now. I don't really agree with that at all. In fact, surveys are showing especially with Obama voters, the primary motivation is pro Obama rather than anti Romney.Let's break it down by some issues: Romney wants to trash Obamacare BAD Obama wants to finish getting Obamacare established GOOD Romney wants to make Medicare a voucher program BAD Obama wants to preserve the current mechanics of Medicare for all generations GOOD Romney supports an anti-gay constitutional amendment BAD Obama supports same sex marriage equality and gay civil rights of all kinds GOOD Romney supports severely restricted abortion rights and his radical running mate is for banning all abortions; he is on record supporting overturning Roe v. Wade BAD Obama supports preserving abortion rights for all women, rich and poor, preserving Roe v. Wade GOOD Romney supports an unbalance approach to the deficit, no new taxes, not even 1 dollar of tax for 10 dollars of cuts BAD Obama supports a balanced approach to the budget and yes taxing the very wealthy a little more GOOD Romney won't say whether mortgage interest deductions are safe, we are supposed to trust him BAD Obama clearly won't be trashing popular with the middle class deductions like mortgage interest GOOD Romney is not convinced there is any evidence of man made climate change so there is no chance he will do anything about it BAD Obama is convinced by mainstream science about man made climate change; there is at least some chance he will do something about BETTER THAN BAD I could go on and on on pretty much ALL issues. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Jingthing Posted October 30, 2012 Share Posted October 30, 2012 A large portion of Obama voters are indeed to the left of Obama. That doesn't mean a majority. I don't know the exact percentage. Do you? I think it is unrealistic to expect a candidate that reflects your politics precisely. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Jingthing Posted October 30, 2012 Share Posted October 30, 2012 (edited) Fire some clerk in the Obama campaign. Case closed. It's not a big deal to people who care about big issues that matter to the people. If you say there are no clerical errors in the Romney campaign, I'll take your word, because I don't care. That issue is beyond trivial. It's silly. Edited October 30, 2012 by Jingthing Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
mania Posted October 30, 2012 Share Posted October 30, 2012 (edited) A large portion of Obama voters are indeed to the left of Obama. That doesn't mean a majority. I don't know the exact percentage. Do you? I think it is unrealistic to expect a candidate that reflects your politics precisely. I do not know but as I said, everyone I know basically either votes so one does not get in or tries to vote one out. The fact that the MSN ignores possible candidates seems controlling/limiting. The fact that the two(main) parties can spend insane amounts of money even now when America is in crisis to field their candidate is sad. Meanwhile brilliant possible leaders are censored for the most part & not allowed to play in the presidential election games. America has been trapped in a box for a long time now. I do not have a solution. Edited October 30, 2012 by mania 1 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Jingthing Posted October 30, 2012 Share Posted October 30, 2012 (edited) The only chance for a viable third party to develop in the U.S. at this point is for the U.S. to completely melt down because the current two party system proves to be completely dysfunctional. Yes, it might happen. For example, it was very disappointing when health care reform was on the agenda that single payer was not even DISCUSSED, which was really wrong as so many Americans are for it. I also would like more diverse views represented but at this point that is mostly happening only WITHIN the democratic party. The republican party is pretty much a solid block of obstructionist right wingers. http://www.healthcare-now.org/another-poll-shows-majority-support-for-single-payer Edited October 30, 2012 by Jingthing 1 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
uptheos Posted October 30, 2012 Share Posted October 30, 2012 A large portion of Obama voters are indeed to the left of Obama. In the real world, doesn't that just mean that those to the left of Obama are still far right of the left wing? About time you guys had a third party. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Jingthing Posted October 30, 2012 Share Posted October 30, 2012 (edited) A large portion of Obama voters are indeed to the left of Obama. In the real world, doesn't that just mean that those to the left of Obama are still far right of the left wing? About time you guys had a third party. Not sure what you are on about. Of course America has a left wing. It is small and has no power but it exists. At times in America's history, it was bigger. Of course I agree Obama has not governed as a left winger. If you mean ideologically pure socialists or communists, again such people exist in the U.S. but yes in small numbers. The fact is support in the U.S. for ideologies that far left are small so it's lack of representation isn't really a big problem. Divorce that from an issue like single payer, which yes means socialization of ONE aspect of American life, yes there is lots of support for that and there will continue to be, but almost all of those people are not pure socialists or communists. Edited October 30, 2012 by Jingthing Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
lomatopo Posted October 30, 2012 Share Posted October 30, 2012 270towin currently has thirty-two potential tie scenarios. Obviously, in the case of a tie, Romney would be the next President. http://www.270towin.com/presidential_map/ties.php?party=dem&num_rem=68&st_remain=FL,PA,OH,MI,NC,VA,WI,CO,IA,NV,NH&me=≠= Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Ulysses G. Posted October 30, 2012 Share Posted October 30, 2012 The republican party is pretty much a solid block of obstructionist right wingers. Luckily, the American electorate rejects such silly rhetoric. Both sides are far from perfect. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Jingthing Posted October 30, 2012 Share Posted October 30, 2012 270towin currently has thirty-two potential tie scenarios. Obviously, in the case of a tie, Romney would be the next President. http://www.270towin....A,NV,NH&me=≠= Yes a tie means Romney wins. Still not likely. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Jingthing Posted October 30, 2012 Share Posted October 30, 2012 The republican party is pretty much a solid block of obstructionist right wingers. Luckily, the American electorate rejects such silly rhetoric. Both sides are far from perfect. Name the moderate republicans in the house and senate if you please. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
keemapoot Posted October 30, 2012 Share Posted October 30, 2012 (edited) The republican party is pretty much a solid block of obstructionist right wingers. Luckily, the American electorate rejects such silly rhetoric. Both sides are far from perfect. Name the moderate republicans in the house and senate if you please. Here's an example of what has happened to the Republican party. Utah Mormon senator Orrin Hatch, after serving about 100 years in the senate, who has always been the Republican party stalwart, was up for re-election this year, and barely survived the Republican Convention being chased out by the tea baggers because he was too liberal. At the Republican convention, Hatch barely failed to get the 60% vote needed to clinch the Republican nomination, so he faced Liljenquist (the second-place winner) in the primary June 26. BTW, Hatch's ACLU rating is 18%, and overall liberal interest group rating is 33%. Hardly what I would call a Socialist. http://senator-liber...r-Orrin-Hatch-R There is little tolerance for what used to be called solidly right-wing Republicans in the party today. Edited October 30, 2012 by keemapoot Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Ulysses G. Posted October 30, 2012 Share Posted October 30, 2012 (edited) The republican party is pretty much a solid block of obstructionist right wingers. Luckily, the American electorate rejects such silly rhetoric. Both sides are far from perfect. Name the moderate republicans in the house and senate if you please. John McCain, Susan Collins, Lisa Murkowski, Thad Cochran, Lamar Alexander, Charles E. Grassley and others who have retired recently or are retiring soon. . Edited October 30, 2012 by Ulysses G. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Jingthing Posted October 30, 2012 Share Posted October 30, 2012 (edited) John McCain, Susan Collins, Lisa Murkowski, Thad Cochran, Lamar Alexander, Charles E. Grassley and others who have retired recently or are retiring soon. . Sounds like a very tiny list. Too lazy to verify their views but the tiny list tells the story whether they are really moderates or not.Meet the Blue Dog Democrats. A BIG list: http://usliberals.ab.../BlueDogs_2.htm The Blue Dog Coalition website sums up its direction: "... the Coalition intends to continue to make a difference in Congress by forging middle-ground, bipartisan answers to the current challenges facing the country... "The group also expects to be involved in a variety of issues, where the stale extreme left vs. right approach requires a breath of fresh air." OBJECTIVELY there is much more diversity of views tolerated under the democratic big tent than the republican tiny narrow tent. Edited October 30, 2012 by Jingthing Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Ulysses G. Posted October 30, 2012 Share Posted October 30, 2012 (edited) Time to read up on the subject: Two years after the 2010 midterm elections decimated their ranks, the coalition of conservative Democrats is poised to get pummeled again in November — moving the Blue Dogs dangerously close to extinction. http://www.politico.com/news/stories/0412/75223.html Edited October 30, 2012 by Ulysses G. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Jingthing Posted October 30, 2012 Share Posted October 30, 2012 Even so, many more moderate democrats than moderate republicans. Fact. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Ulysses G. Posted October 30, 2012 Share Posted October 30, 2012 , According to Politico, not after November. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Chicog Posted October 30, 2012 Share Posted October 30, 2012 Interesting watching Fox this morning. I remember a well known Fleet Street editor saying that all Eds hate big bad news stories - ad revenue disappears, because no-one wants to be puffing their products admist doom and gloom (all to do with the subliminal associations). So there are Fox going on about the doom and gloom of Superstorm Sandy being responsible for deaths and destruction, but they had to get their "Romney doing well in Ohio" pump in as well. Nice one, Fox. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
mania Posted October 30, 2012 Share Posted October 30, 2012 About time you guys had a third party. In the US there are actually Five Major parties But they are not really allowed to equally take part in the actual race, Never allowed at debates & for the most part ignored by MSM Democratic Party Founded 1828 Republican Party Founded 1854 Libertarian Party Founded 1971 Green Party Founded 1991 Constitution Party Founded 1992 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Neurath Posted October 30, 2012 Share Posted October 30, 2012 Yes, I'd rather rationalize an Obama victory as vote stealing/bad weather/whatever than believe that the country has changed so much for the worse and that half my own citizens actually exercised their free will and chose Obama. No need to rationalize at all. Just have to chant with Romney and acolytes that 47% of US voters are parasites sucking the teats of the State dry and hence incapable of taking personal responsibility for their lives. Romney said it, Romney meant it, live with it. 2 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
hellodolly Posted October 30, 2012 Share Posted October 30, 2012 Are you content with OPEC setting the price of oil? Supply and demand has everything to do with the price of oil. High demand along with limited supply generally causes a hike in the price of oil. If the US becomes energy independent, that would conceivably remove the US demand from the world market, thereby causing a lowering of the price per barrel worldwide. Securing the oil from both the US and Canada would lower the transportation costs currently associated with Middle East oil as well. And just think how many jobs could be created by having a truly viable oil industry. So, what is wrong with my thinking here? Wow, now all of a sudden you have abandoned the effect of a the market. Where Romney's argument falls apart is that it doesn't matter if the USA is energy independent, prices at the pump are still significantly influenced by energy prices in the open market. One of the reason's why both Obama and Romney did not answer the price of fuel at the US pump question directly is that they both know, that US energy providers set their prices based upon world prices. The only way to change it is if the US government imposed pricing regulations and this would be impossible. I am fascinated by the American assumption that Mexican and Canadian energy will automatically be spoken for in the market. Both Mexico and Canada are sovereign countries and can sell their energy where they see fit and to the markets that offer the best prices. Mr. Romney raised the issue of the delay of the oil pipeline from Canada and blamed Obama. What he failed to mention was that the resistance to the pipeline came from Repoublican state governors and congressional delegates. The resistance was a legitimate expression of serious concerns that the Canadian pipeline developers did not address. There is a growing resentment in Canada that western oil flows to the USA to be refined and is then sold back to Canada at a much higher price, while the eastern region of Canada imports oil from Venezuala and the middle east. Pressure is growing to build oil refineries in the east to service the domestic Canadian market and LG facilities on the west coast to service the asian market. Canada can make musch more by selling its energy to China and it is why China is trying to gobble up some of Canada's largest energy producers. Mexicans are increasingly asking why their energy is being exported to the USA when the Chinese are willing to pay more. If the USA wants to be energy independent it will have to reduce its squandering of energy. That means no more gas guzzling vehicles and that means increasing costs at the pump to encourage restraint. It means a continued emphasis on building fuel efficient vehicles and in supporting public transit. Mr. Obama spoke to that and Mr. Romney wasn't interested in such notions. None of the aforementioned is popular with Americans. The USA can drill as much as it wants, it can build all the coal plants that spew pollutants into the atmosphere causing health and environmental damage, it can rush forward with shale gas development that imperils an already damaged water table and that has the potential to severely damage the agriculture of the USA as water is polluted , but the fact remains that the only way to become energy self sufficient is if demand is reduced and that means behaving responsibly. I don't think American's are capable of doing that because they live in a country where the subject is taboo and no one wants to address the reality. Well said. Americans are completely ignorant when it comes to energy. (and a few other things) All ready they have spent their kids future tax's now along comes Romney wanting to take away their energy resources. The early American Patriot Thomas Paine said it best. If there be war to come let it be in my time. Romney says if there be energy resource shortages let it be in are children's time. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Chicog Posted October 30, 2012 Share Posted October 30, 2012 (edited) The energy issue has already been discussed. It's actually a really smart idea to force the Arabs and the Venezuelans et al to pump like hell, because when Peak Oil does arrive (and some believe it's close if it hasn't happened already), the value of American oil and gas reserves will start to grow significantly and, eventually, exponentially. With Qatar and Iran in a race to suck South Pars/North Dome dry, it could all be very rosy. But if Romney stupidly opens the floodgates to US oil and gas reserves, future generations of Americans can wave goodbye to this relative windfall - the greedy, Romney-backing Oil and Gas companies will pump the gas and stash the cash. They don't care. And see how much they pay the US treasury in taxes after the profits have been washed through a matrix of foreign tax avoidance vehicles. Still, Romney knows all about that, doesn't he? Edited October 30, 2012 by Chicog Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
chuckd Posted October 30, 2012 Share Posted October 30, 2012 Interesting watching Fox this morning. I remember a well known Fleet Street editor saying that all Eds hate big bad news stories - ad revenue disappears, because no-one wants to be puffing their products admist doom and gloom (all to do with the subliminal associations). So there are Fox going on about the doom and gloom of Superstorm Sandy being responsible for deaths and destruction, but they had to get their "Romney doing well in Ohio" pump in as well. Nice one, Fox. A long time ago, I learned if I was watching something I didn't like, the "off" and/or "channel select" button worked very well. Hence, my knowledge of MSNBC is limited by my choice. Nobody is holding a gun to my head to watch a particular channel. 1 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Jingthing Posted October 30, 2012 Share Posted October 30, 2012 I highly recommend watching MSNBC and FOX simultaneously. Political stereo. Long term impact on sanity undetermined. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Chicog Posted October 30, 2012 Share Posted October 30, 2012 Ah bless, and just now Fox are showing the "edited" graph of Gas Prices, showing how "low" they were "when he started". Which again ignores how high they were under Bush, and how they collapsed along with the rest of the economy (quite understandably). And then some twerp on the sofa is saying Natural Gas prices are low because of all the drilling - which they seem to have forgotten they constantly accuse Obama of blocking (even though there are hardly any accessible gas resources on Federal land). Really, for a news station they don't seem to make much effort to show their bias, but you get the impression that for their core viewers, insulting their intelligence must be an impossibility. Both candidates have cancelled scheduled events, in Romney's case "out of sensitivity for those in harms way". And he plans to hold a "Storm Relief" event this afternoon - in Ohio. 1 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
koheesti Posted October 30, 2012 Share Posted October 30, 2012 John McCain, Susan Collins, Lisa Murkowski, Thad Cochran, Lamar Alexander, Charles E. Grassley and others who have retired recently or are retiring soon. . Sounds like a very tiny list. Too lazy to verify their views but the tiny list tells the story whether they are really moderates or not.Meet the Blue Dog Democrats. A BIG list: http://usliberals.ab.../BlueDogs_2.htm The Blue Dog Coalition website sums up its direction: "... the Coalition intends to continue to make a difference in Congress by forging middle-ground, bipartisan answers to the current challenges facing the country... "The group also expects to be involved in a variety of issues, where the stale extreme left vs. right approach requires a breath of fresh air." OBJECTIVELY there is much more diversity of views tolerated under the democratic big tent than the republican tiny narrow tent. For those unfamiliar to American politics or have only relied on Obama-controlled media for their knowledge, it was these "Blue Dog Democrats" who blocked Obama much of his first two years, NOT the Republicans. 2 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Scott Posted October 30, 2012 Share Posted October 30, 2012 Off-topic posts deleted as well as replies. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
samran Posted October 30, 2012 Share Posted October 30, 2012 John McCain, Susan Collins, Lisa Murkowski, Thad Cochran, Lamar Alexander, Charles E. Grassley and others who have retired recently or are retiring soon. . Sounds like a very tiny list. Too lazy to verify their views but the tiny list tells the story whether they are really moderates or not.Meet the Blue Dog Democrats. A BIG list: http://usliberals.ab.../BlueDogs_2.htm The Blue Dog Coalition website sums up its direction: "... the Coalition intends to continue to make a difference in Congress by forging middle-ground, bipartisan answers to the current challenges facing the country... "The group also expects to be involved in a variety of issues, where the stale extreme left vs. right approach requires a breath of fresh air." OBJECTIVELY there is much more diversity of views tolerated under the democratic big tent than the republican tiny narrow tent. For those unfamiliar to American politics or have only relied on Obama-controlled media for their knowledge, it was these "Blue Dog Democrats" who blocked Obama much of his first two years, NOT the Republicans. Obama controlled media? Conspiracy theories don't become you there koheetsi. I take it also then that the republicans were trying to be cooperative but those darn blue dogs just kept on getting in the way. 1 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
uptheos Posted October 30, 2012 Share Posted October 30, 2012 About time you guys had a third party. In the US there are actually Five Major parties But they are not really allowed to equally take part in the actual race, Never allowed at debates & for the most part ignored by MSM Democratic Party Founded 1828 Republican Party Founded 1854 Libertarian Party Founded 1971 Green Party Founded 1991 Constitution Party Founded 1992 Thanks for this, but why can't they take part in the race or debates? Why should it be just two? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
.png.3b3332cc2256ad0edbc2fe9404feeef0.png)
Recommended Posts