2012 United States Presidential Election

[Carnage]

My money is on Obama. Unless the economy starts declining again, which is a very real possibility. Has anyone else been keeping up with the Republican primaries?

[Animeniax]

Yeah, the GOP is for shit. They don't have a candidate that can compete with Obama. They keep rotating top candidates because the front runner keeps making an ass of him/herself in debates and interviews. Like Jon Stewart pointed out, Romney is keeping quiet and letting the other candidates ruin their own chances. As soon as Romney speaks, he'll doom himself.

4 more years for Obama sounds good to me, if Congress gets its shit together.

Obama needs to pick a new VP who can succeed him and help him win in 2012. Biden isn't that guy.

[Sapphire]

Politics is bad theatre: the elections are basically a giant shit talking fest, and sometimes it's painful to watch. On today's episode we talk about blowing up Iran!

[Animeniax]

It's amazing how the GOP candidates are derailing each other, providing plenty of material for the Dems and Comedy Central. But to be honest, the GOP has one of the most pathetic crops of candidates any party has produced in decades.

[Sapphire]

Most of them are bloodthirsty psychopaths, but the bad response from the public is thinning them out nicely.

Hopefully it doesn't come down to Obama (economically frivolous bloodthirsty psychopath) and Romney/Santorum/Gingrich (homophobic bloodthirsy psychopath).

[Animeniax]

Hopefully? Because that's the most likely scenario. Wouldn't be all bad, since Romney is a moderate conservative. But Obama beats him.

[Sapphire]

How do you know it's likely? And don't say polls. Santorum was in the like the bottom 5 for Iowa for the whole first part of the race and all of a sudden he's only lost Iowa by 8 votes?

[Kraco]

How do you figure Obama is likely to start a new war (bloodthirstiness)? Iraq is finished, Afghanistan is seeing Western troops withdrawing one country after another. You'd think even the USA would rather conserve some money (or let's say reduce the annual debt taking) rather than throw more money into the blazes of war.

[Sapphire]

How does starting new wars only count as being bloodthirsty. It's amazing that it took Obama three years to finally end the wars and start withdrawing troops (except for the "non-combatants"), right on time for re-election. And the drug war still counts as a war, which he hasn't said a peep about (except to admit to doing them when he was younger).


You'd think even the USA would rather conserve some money (or let's say reduce the annual debt taking) rather than throw more money into the blazes of war.

Not at all. Though I can't imagine why.

Edit: Nevermind, I can't find any evidence that the war in Afghanistan is ending, except for "negotiations" rumored by the media.

[Kraco]

The war in Afghanistan will not end until there's only one man alive in that wretched hellhole. And even then it will resume once that last man's sons are old enough to fight. However, that has got nothing to do with us. I said for a reason that Afghanistan is losing the Western troops steadily. I very much doubt the USA will be sticking around that much longer either after the rest of us have hit the road. Afterwards China will supply whoever happens to be in power with money and weapons in exchange for rare earth minerals - because the communists are today's biggest capitalists and couldn't care less whom they are dealing with.

Well, I could be wrong and I'm certainly not the biggest US foreign policy expert, but generally speaking wars start to get really old in voters' opinions after years of bad news.

[Carnage]

If Romney had more charisma and could learn to raise his voice in a debate, I would actually say he'd be a marvel Republican candidate. And I can promise you out of the current crop of candidates, he will be the the nominee. Every front runner thus far has only been a sideshow attraction. The GOP isn't out to lose (at least not blatantly); they know they have to put up someone with at least a chance of beating Obama. The rise in polls of every other candidate has simply been the non-establishment crying over its distaste of Romney, but it will eventually get there. None of these other clowns can compete in a general election; Santorum is a fucking nut job who brought home a fetus to show to his kids. Newt is the biggest slimeball on stage. Perry can barely keep a sentence together on stage. And Ron Paul is basically running for the wrong party. Obama has a good track record to run on everything except for the economy, which isnt worsening, only moving sluggishly which people might look by if the Republican nominee fails to muster excitement (Romney puts me to sleep half the time to be honest). He'll probably be destroyed in the debates.

[rockmanj]

http://www.rollingstone.com/politics/blogs/taibblog/iowa-the-meaningless-sideshow-begins-20120103

[Ryllharu]

Yeah, the GOP is for shit. They don't have a candidate that can compete with Obama. They keep rotating top candidates because the front runner keeps making an ass of him/herself in debates and interviews.
It's really pathetic. For all the talk of hope and change, Obama basically continued every policy introduced by Bush that democrats or liberals lambasted non-stop for how tyrannical they were. Warrantless Wiretapping, the Patriot Act in general, etc. If Obama didn't simply keep them, he often strengthened those policies further. (But I'll be fair, Congress prevented him from closing Guantanamo.) You can't even say he's not a warmonger, since the whole Libya affair was a "police action" and skipped the required approval by Congress.

Then we have the examples of his complete lack of leadership. The Gulf Oil spill, where he decided to stay out of it until the media started making a lot of noise about how he wasn't doing anything. A really nice executive order should have been to allow the foreign ships to aid in immediate action (they were legally banned from coming so far near our coasts, allowing only locals to do work that they simply were not trained to do, like the Dutch or Norwegian ships were). That single act would have prevented the spill from getting as bad as it did. Instead he did nothing until the PR started to look bad.

This should have been a slam dunk for the Republicans. But they can't field a decent candidate who can speak intelligently, or not act like a psychopath to scrounge for votes from the Conservative "base." Ron Paul can at least debate intelligently, but the media loathes him.

The media actually spun an Iowa Straw Poll result into stating that Michele Bachmann had won it, despite the fact that she lost it by well over a thousand votes. She did later win the Ames Straw Poll (also in Iowa), but it was pretty disgusting media spin for quite a while.

Then we've got the professional politicians and the scumbags (often one in the same). I do enjoy how Mitt Romney likes to pose himself as a Washington Outsider. Newt is well...Newt Gingrich (enough said). And if Santorum wins, we can expect him to order the systematical extermination of homosexuals...classy.


But you know what they say, "It does take a certain kind of monster to run for political office..."



How do you know it's likely? And don't say polls. Santorum was in the like the bottom 5 for Iowa for the whole first part of the race and all of a sudden he's only lost Iowa by 8 votes?This is equally disgusting. I don't like Romney (as mentioned above, I think he's a scumbag), but Santorum getting second place, but more importantly how he campaigned, was no less disgusting. It tells a lot about the hijacking of the Conservatist side to our country.

Romney is a front-runner, no question. But the very fact that he's a Mormon is so repellent to the Christian Conservative Base that hijacked the Republican Party, that they'll look for anyone who cries from the rafters that they are a Super Christian, Born-Again, whatever. So Santorum goes from the bottom of the race, to running around Iowa telling everyone how Super Christian he is. Every speech lays out how much he loves God.

What part of Romney being a Mormon has anything to do with his policies or whether or not he would be a good President? Who gives a shit? Idiots do.

[dragonrage]

Obama is going to win and the economy is still going to be in the crapper or in greater decline. There has been too many Natural and Economic disasters for an immediate recovery. So you all better save your pennies and buckle down for the long haul. The President is just one man, that is either supported or opposed by the system (congress, lobbies etc) and the system is what's fucked.

There is no GOP candidate that posses any threat to Obama and short of anything extreme happening I don't see him losing. The GOP and better Presidential candidates don't want to be the janitor for this Global mess that is facing them. It's just a circus act now.

[Y]

Just a note: the media not following Ron Paul is doing him a kindness. Serious media attention would absolutely destroy a hypothetical Ron Paul candidacy.

[Ryllharu]

It's one thing when they are not scrutinizing him. It's another when they politely pretend he doesn't even exist.

[Y]

It's one thing when they are not scrutinizing him. It's another when they politely pretend he doesn't even exist.

www.google.com

"Ron Paul" www.cnn.com

About 135,000,000 results (0.39 seconds)

[Animeniax]

Of course liberal websites will have information on Ron Paul, he's the best option of the GOP bunch as far as the Dems are concerned. Conservative websites and media outlets don't give him as much coverage.

[Y]

Of course liberal websites will have information on Ron Paul, he's the best option of the GOP bunch as far as the Dems are concerned. Conservative websites and media outlets don't give him as much coverage.

Sometimes I don't even know what you're angling for with posts like this.

[rockmanj]

I am with Y on this. Ta-Nehisi Coates (http://www.theatlantic.com/ta-nehisi-coates/) has been covering some of Paul's more negative aspects. It would be pretty damning if the media actually chose to cover it.

[Carnage]

I disagree with most of Paul's ideology, but I respect him as an individual. He almost seems to innocent to be in politics.

[Sapphire]

I am with Y on this. Ta-Nehisi Coates (http://www.theatlantic.com/ta-nehisi-coates/) has been covering some of Paul's more negative aspects. It would be pretty damning if the media actually chose to cover it.

Too much walls of text to read with this headache; can you summarize the points?

[rockmanj]

Well, this piece is probably eh best representative on Paul from his canon http://www.theatlantic.com/politics/archive/2012/01/the-messenger/250685/

[Sapphire]

Not helping my headache..................... bullet pointz plz? D: D: D:

[Y]

Paul is a racist, arch-conservative lunatic.

Also, with regards to the point earlier about media coverage on Paul and CNN, in no sense of the word "liberal" (either the globally accepted definition of the word or the perverse American usage of it) is a major news network "liberal". CNN, along with every other major news outlet, is pro-business, authoritarian and slavishly devoted to pimping the status quo. Can anyone be so delusional that they think a multibillion dollar news agency is serving the interests of leftist hippies? Are you genuinely so stupid that you dare to parrot talk radio horseshit about the "Clinton News Network"? Seriously fall back trying to play that shit with me.

[Edort4]

Im not too much into the US elections but from my outside point of view there isnt much to choose from.

I always liked the candidates that the mass media blatantly attack or try to bury/ignore. From the few things I have watched I would say that my vote would go to Ron Paul. I dont know much about him but I like those videos and articles from FOX, CNN, NYT that manipulate most of the interviews he is made and portray him as some kind of crazy old geezer who lives out of reality.

Also some other things I like to look for are these:

http://www.opensecrets.org/pres12/head2head.php?cand1=N00005906&cand2=N00000286&x=27&y=24

http://www.washingtonpost.com/politics/billionaire-donors/2011/12/05/gIQAa3spXO_graphic.html

[Sapphire]

Paul is a racist, arch-conservative lunatic.

What is racist about him?

[Animeniax]

Paul is a racist, arch-conservative lunatic.

Also, with regards to the point earlier about media coverage on Paul and CNN, in no sense of the word "liberal" (either the globally accepted definition of the word or the perverse American usage of it) is a major news network "liberal". CNN, along with every other major news outlet, is pro-business, authoritarian and slavishly devoted to pimping the status quo. Can anyone be so delusional that they think a multibillion dollar news agency is serving the interests of leftist hippies? Are you genuinely so stupid that you dare to parrot talk radio horseshit about the "Clinton News Network"? Seriously fall back trying to play that shit with me.
It's very well known that CNN represents the liberal agenda and FoxNews represents the conservative agenda. To dispute that is to be ignorant of reality.

[rockmanj]

What is racist about him?

Coates put it better than me, but if your headache ever subsides, you should read that piece. I am not going to summarize it. And the news orgs. (well, most but FOX) only seem to be "liberal". The more accurate word to use is "moneyed". They all represent moneyed interests, but some do occasionally have a "liberal bias". Often the news gives two sides of a story in the name of objectivity, when sometimes there really is something unequivocally good or bad about a story.

An example of this is the current congressional gridlock. Everyone that keeps up with politics knows that a lot of important measures and bills are being actively blocked by republican senators and reps, but the news usually reports it as a general congressional problem.

[Animeniax]

Coates put it better than me, but if your headache ever subsides, you should read that piece. I am not going to summarize it. And the news orgs. (well, most but FOX) only seem to be "liberal". The more accurate word to use is "moneyed". They all represent moneyed interests, but some do occasionally have a "liberal bias". Often the news gives two sides of a story in the name of objectivity, when sometimes there really is something unequivocally good or bad about a story.

An example of this is the current congressional gridlock. Everyone that keeps up with politics knows that a lot of important measures and bills are being actively blocked by republican senators and reps, but the news usually reports it as a general congressional problem.
It is the will of the people since they voted the Republicans back into power in Congress. The people want nothing done, they like gridlock. That's why democracy doesn't work.

[Y]

It's very well known that CNN represents the liberal agenda and FoxNews represents the conservative agenda. To dispute that is to be ignorant of reality.

Yeah it's "very well known" by people who are stupid as fuck.

[Ryllharu]

Indeed.

FoxNews is certainly the conservative, but the contra to that is MSNBC. CNN are the morons in the middle who embarrass themselves by using "holograms" or pointless, malfunctioning (http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=n4TNAarj-n0) super high-tech touchscreen boards (http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=IDhtB1xXBac) and recently relying solely on twitter for sourcing their news.

[Y]

Fox News is Republican. MSNBC is Democrat. These are very, very different things than being "liberal" and "conservative" because it would imply either network has a consistent philosophical agenda, instead of a bottom line and a section of the market to pander to.

[dragonrage]

The news is about ratings and agenda (investors, shareholders, partners etc) it's not just about reporting the facts but how the facts are manipulated to better fuels their agenda. It's about fueling and dazzling the mob ( people that look at the news as nothing but yet another TV show). Keep them entertained and pacified. That's why Shit like Charlie Sheen and Lindsey Lohan are so popular because it bring the ratings and basically goes nowhere. Partly because that is what the public wants, something to keep them entertained.

As far as politics goes, it's the same song and dance (that's been going on for centuries). They all promise you this to get elected but fully well know they can't deliver but put forward some show (if even that) that they tried. They all have obligations to their parties, lobbies and the people that got them in power in the first place (special interest). Why, because that is how the game is played. There is no way a guy that hasn't already been in the mud and fully corrupted can ever win an election, because you need money and backing. Political backing, and the one's already in power (old money folks, political families, and so on) already have a firm grasp on the system. If they don't like you, you can be sure that they will use everything in their power to make sure you're nothing but dust that can be easily brushed off.

As far as the elections goes I'm a democrat, it's a shitty choice between a Douch and a Turdsandwich (South Park), either way you end up eating and asking for something that you don't want whether you choose to or not. But it is my belief that President Obama can't and won't fuck things up more that it already is. The economy is bad, not just ours but the World's as well. There is just so much one can do. You got to admit with all the revolutions, wars, natural disasters and economic troubles of both Major companies and Countries it's hard to get anything done that you set out to do. When he entered the office it was already a shit filled pit and well more just keep on piling up.

I don't favor any Republican Candidate because it is well known that they all have their own interests in mind or the interest of their financial bed partners ( yes I am bias but this is what I strongly believe). Just look at Dick Cheney, still won't admit that ANY of his decisions or that of Bush ( I refuse to call him a President) was anyway wrong or excessive. But the Companies that he and the Bush family is part of ( Oil companies, Saudi Arabia partners) made a killing from the Afganistan war and the Iraq downfall ( with sky rocketing oil prices and the pipe line that was constructed using Pakistani workers through Afganistan with American support). Greed at it's best while we paid trillions as a country.

Fact of the matter is I don't really see them using the Presidential office for the good of the American people. They look out for their own interests and just look at it as just another tool.

I do hope the the economy gets better and pray that there are less and less natural disasters because everyone needs improvement in their financial affairs. Just hope we all learn from what has happened (doubtful about that, Americans as a whole are too damn dumb and materialistic to actually think that far ahead, the ones that do are corrupt) and don't let it happen again. And for God sakes, bring back some damn manufacturing jobs back to the country, the service industry can only do so much.


edit: Grammar, yeah yeah I know I suck at it.

[Sapphire]

Well, this piece is probably eh best representative on Paul from his canon http://www.theatlantic.com/politics/archive/2012/01/the-messenger/250685/

If you don't give a shit about the issue enough to write out a few bullet points of your off-the-wall accusation then I don't care enough to read your articles.

-

Ron Paul wants to stop America's imperialism, pull out of all these foreign wars, and this will save the lives of hundreds of thousands of people. Put the left vs. right bitching aside and just realize that it's a matter of life and death.

The US military goes out and murders people, destroys families because of some charismatic guy who got elected in a popularity contest (all past presidents)? Though the media tries its best to make it so, this situation is not a drama TV show. It's our fellow humans who are getting murdered by our tax money. Think about it.

Watching the circus freak side show that is the GOP Primaries makes me sick. It makes me sad that people just say stupid shit about rumors of someone's character rather than looking at what the person is fighting for. I just can't respect anyone who makes light of the issue and turns it into some game and talks about inconsequential shit like "OHMIGAH HOW LIBERAL IS CNN? KEKE THATS WHY RON PAUL BLABLA HE'S RACIST AGAINST UNAMERICANS BLA"

At least talk about the economy.

-

Kraco, was that post of yours excusing Obama for the atrocities of Afghanistan, because it's "hopeless" to you?

-

Also all of the other candidates openly admitted during the Thanksgiving forum that they would move to ban gay marriage and abortion all together because they're "christian". God knows what else they'll do to buy a vote. Not to mention, Iran is he new big thing to bomb. Chilling.

[Kraco]

Kraco, was that post of yours excusing Obama for the atrocities of Afghanistan, because it's "hopeless" to you?

What is done is done. Besides, Obama didn't start Afghanistan. If he gets reelected, I hope he can finish the US involvement there, although the same goes for any next US president. Also, the Afghans are themselves perfectly capable of the worst atrocities; they don't need foreign help to torture themselves, not in the least. They are the ones who founded Taleban, which is all the proof needed of the wickedness present in that country. If they want to live in stone age and oppress themselves, let them do it in peace. We should just stick to safely firebombing the drug plantations every now and then and buying the rare earth minerals. You can't force a whole country with an ancient civilization to reform itself in a few years. Better stay out of it.

[Edort4]

Yeah I have to agree that they where doing fine by their own at least until 2000s ban. Then NATO came in to teach them how to rule. Ain't we the best at it?

1144

[Carnage]

Kind of funny how people complain about the media only to buy its hype on Ron Paul being a racist. If anyone can find him personally making racist comments, I'll believe it.

[rockmanj]

If you don't give a shit about the issue enough to write out a few bullet points of your off-the-wall accusation then I don't care enough to read your articles.

-


I have no idea where all that hostility comes from, but it is only a couple of pages long and a great article. I think everyone that is interested in Ron Paul should read it; me putting in bullet points would not do it justice.

I do think Paul says provocative and important things, but he also takes his belief in states' rights to an extreme and has said that he does not think that the Civil Rights Act was a good idea. (http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2012/01/01/ron-paul-civil-rights-act_n_1178688.html://) I understand his reasoning, but I don't agree with it. I would also not want to have someone in office that thinks the Civil War was "pointless" (http://www.youtube.com/watch?feature=player_embedded&v=jbOE4Ip7In0)and that slavery would have just dissipated. And even though presidents cannot affect that much change on their own, I would rather not have him (or any of the other Repub candidates) representing me as the head of state.

And like Kraco, I think Afghanistan is a mess. Yes, the president did say that he thought it more important to focus on, and he did not start the war there, but now it is at the point where it seems nobody really knows what to do about the place. I personally think we need to get out of there ASAP, but I am sure there are complications to that that we are unaware of that are probably preventing an immediate draw-down.

[Y]

It's ridiculous to think that the US will ever "get out" of Iraq and Afghanistan. You realize we have troops deployed in basically every goddamn country in the world at all times, right? We never left Japan, or South Korea. We are literally never going to leave Iraq or Afghanistan (the troop drawdown in Iraq does not in any way constitute "leaving" in the same sense that we left Vietnam). We'll be there in a hundred years, assuming US global hegemony still exists at that point, which is a rather shaky proposition.

[Ryllharu]

South Korea is kind of an exception. They are still technically at war with the North, and the U.S. has signed a pact to continue to defend them (http://www.koreaembassyusa.org/bilateral/military/eng_military4.asp).

We've "left" Iraq...but the Embassy is a Fortress. "The Embassy of the United States in Baghdad is the largest and most expensive of any embassy in the world. At 0.44 square kilometers it is nearly as large as Vatican City." Anyone who thinks that we are not still directly involved in Iraq's affairs needs only to look at that beast. Anyone who doesn't think the US uses that "embassy" as a base for clandestine operations is a fool.

Afghanistan is a problem. It has always been a problem (for the Russians prior to the US) and it will always be a problem. A lot of that is the simple constant flux due to the demographics of Afganistan. Too many diverse tribes. At least there, the United States has a large amount of coalition support. Furthermore, India will be taking over, similar to the alliance that the US has with South Korea. Though it's pretty obvious what India's motives are, considering the particular country they can now pincer between Afghanistan and India (for those not up to date on geography or history, it is Pakistan, who are no friends to India).

We live in interesting times. Isolationism simply will not be possible.

[dragonrage]

http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2011/09/16/us-embassy-iraq-state-department-plan_n_965945.html

It is a beast. And the reduction of the troops is to please the public.

[Kraco]

Can the USA get all that money back in oil or do they simply have so much spare money to spend? I had no idea they would continue to pump such amounts of money into that wretched country after pulling out the actual military troops. From my point of view there's little danger of the Arab countries unifying for greater common purposes any time soon, so divide and rule hardly can be the primary reason.

[Carnage]

I doubt its entirely "pumping" money into those countries per say. I mean its a complete waste of the tax payer's money yes, but to the people in charge they probably know military contractors and the like are making a lot of dough off this business. The trillions of dollars go somewhere (arms builders).

[rockmanj]

Yea, the Military Industrial complex needs to get their due. When the formal military moves out, that is when those guys take over en masse.

[dragonrage]

Can the USA get all that money back in oil or do they simply have so much spare money to spend? I had no idea they would continue to pump such amounts of money into that wretched country after pulling out the actual military troops. From my point of view there's little danger of the Arab countries unifying for greater common purposes any time soon, so divide and rule hardly can be the primary reason.

Short answer is yes, long answer is maybe. If more money is need it can be just printed ( Uncle Sam's assets and values can't really be measured and most of America's debt is infact owned by the American people, Social Security and whatnot) of course it means higher inflation but since the US dollar is a World standard, do you think they really care? They are after the oil and all this is just to ensure that they get it. Petroleum is integrated into every aspect of our society, not just gas (simple things such as plastic, shampoo and everything you can possibly think of is basically connected to oil). Yes there is a ton of money that is flowing too damn loosely but who really is counting, who can be held accountable, who is the one going to enforce it. Answer to all those questions is the Government.

The Arab countries are not just one big group of people that just occupy different countries. They all have their own cultures, pride and customs (pride is a big thing to them, it's a very ignorant comment I just made since I don't know all the different Countries personally but I believe it is accurate). While they might be willing to help eachother out once in a while, that doesn't mean they are united.

As for the reasons why that "Embassy" is there for the better or worse, I would venture to say it's a means to an end. It's there to have a foot hold in enemy territory, it's there for intelligence purposes (I use that term very loosely), it's there for meet and greets, arms deals, shaddy deals, greed and everything else it can be used for.

[Carnage]

Short answer is yes, long answer is maybe. If more money is need it can be just printed ( Uncle Sam's assets and values can't really be measured and most of America's debt is infact owned by the American people, Social Security and whatnot) of course it means higher inflation but since the US dollar is a World standard, do you think they really care? They are after the oil and all this is just to ensure that they get it. Petroleum is integrated into every aspect of our society, not just gas (simple things such as plastic, shampoo and everything you can possibly think of is basically connected to oil). Yes there is a ton of money that is flowing too damn loosely but who really is counting, who can be held accountable, who is the one going to enforce it. Answer to all those questions is the Government.


We can't in fact just keep printing money because it devalues our dollar. If we suddenly start printing trillions of more dollars, speculators will worry and our economy might slump further.

[rockmanj]

I can't believe they are having a GOP debate this morning after the one last night. Someone is making a shit ton of money on these debates, I am guessing, and that is probably why they are occurring so often.

[dragonrage]

We can't in fact just keep printing money because it devalues our dollar. If we suddenly start printing trillions of more dollars, speculators will worry and our economy might slump further.


I'm not saying that it will happen indefinitely but it has happened and just recently too. Yes it does reduce the value of the US dollar, hence the word inflation. Just stating it has and always been an option.

@ Rockmanj: it has been political comedy hour for quite a while now. I don't know whether to cry endlessly or laugh. It's saddening to think one of these guys can be in charge of your future, it's a very scary thought.

[David75]

US Elections?
Well, I've got boring French ones too, competing for most boring elections in the world with USA ones...

Regarding USA and debt?
Well, till 10-20 years ago, the US of A were able to do anything they wanted with the money they created and devaluate anytime to lessen the burden, leveraging what you could call a world tax.
But, in the last 20 years, China has absorbed a great deal of US debt in many forms and has enough weight to prevent the US of A to play the devaluation game as they please. So the debt now keeps increasing and the system is soon to be in a deadlock.

I do not know what will happen that will solve that problem, but rules have changed ever since China got more and more trade powers... They didn't even have to force anyone to get those power, they were offered to them. Even with absolutely no ill intentions, it's a fact they have more power and can/will influence any global solution that has to be found to solve the now global economical mess we have.

What can a new US of A president do then? I don't know...

[dragonrage]

I've agree with most of what you said. Just curious what does the "A" stand for.....

[darkshadow]

Are you serious?

[dragonrage]

Are you serious?

Dead serious. If you read his comment you will get the feel that he infers it to mean something other that "America". I got the impression of something along the lines of "Assholes", "Arrogant Pricks" and so on. Just wanted to know for clarity.

[David75]

I would not infer such things without smileys or some kind of explanation.
And I know I used both USA and US of A, without knowing why using the longer one.
My question would be why would you think I would write that in the context of what I wrote?
But the discussion isn't about it.
Let's get back to the elections.

[darkshadow]

Yeah why would you think that? I didn't get a feeling he was inferring anything; you are just projecting.

[dragonrage]

My question would be why would you think I would write that in the context of what I wrote?


You're French :o.

Still didn't answer my question.


DS you could be right.

As you requested, getting back to the GOP

http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2012/01/08/republican-debate-sunday-new-hampshire-fireworks_n_1192374.html

(http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2012/01/08/republican-debate-sunday-new-hampshire-fireworks_n_1192374.html)http://www.cnn.com/2012/01/08/politics/new-hampshire-debates/index.html?hpt=hp_t1


http://nbcpolitics.msnbc.msn.com/_news/2012/01/08/10049477-romney-faces-fire-at-nbc-news-facebook-debate


To some it up, just nick picking over stuff that doesn't really matter when you consider what the road ahead has in store and how they intend to deal with it.


p.s. David75 in retrospect I was rather hasty in my assumption and in my own habit of mentally reading US as the United States I came up with a rather insulting phrase. Doesn't mean that in some cases it isn't true, but still insulting ether way. So I apologize for inferring something you didn't originally say and accusing you of the like.

[David75]

Yup I'm French, doesn't mean I have something against the USA and never had the intention of implying the separation of the A would mean something like you did.
Now, it all seems like you somehow think like that and were using my post as ways of venting your ideas. Go ahead, express your feelings.

Then we'll go back to the subject ;)

[Shadow Skill]

I would like to see http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=BrhA0sEkuaM as president. :P

[rockmanj]

Is Mitt Romney the Whitest Man in America? (http://www.theatlantic.com/national/archive/2012/01/the-whitest-man-in-america/251454/#disqus_thread)

[Animeniax]

A buddy at work pointed me to http://www.americanselect.org/

It's a website to pick a 3rd candidate to run for president if you're not happy with the 2 parties' nominees. You gauge some initial values, then answer questions about your political leanings to adjust where you stand on all sorts of topics from immigration to campaign finance reform. The site's purpose is to gather enough user input to actually nominate and back an independent candidate in the 2012 presidential elections.

I've signed up, but personally I think it's fruitless and just a way to make us feel like we're not powerless in this $$$$ political system.

[Pandadice]

You know, I had kinda liked the idea of an effective third party candidate jumping into the race. Because, yeah, the forced dichotomy is pretty ridiculous. It would be great to get other people in there who actually have a chance. Other people with different ideas that would let us actually choose what we want.

However, currently, the way the system is set up a third-party candidate would only help one of the two main candidates to lose. For instance, a third-party, tea party candidate would definitely split the republican vote and guarantee Obama a second term. And, that's why I think breaking up the current system and allowing for effective third-party participation could be a good thing.

However, that is what I thought. Yet, after considering it, I think that would be a terrible idea. Lincoln won with 39% of the popular vote. 1.8 million people, out of 31 million (Not sure what the voting age/participating population would be). 1.8 million people decided Lincoln should lead the country. Currently, in presidential elections, under 60% of the voting age population participates. Break that into thirds for a three-party race, and you've got 20% of voting age American's deciding who our next president is. Is it that different from 30-35% deciding? Personally, yeah, I'm more comfortable with a third of the population deciding the president rather than a fifth. Imagine if we had a fourth candidate (such as was the case in the 1860 election)? 15% of people controlling the leadership of the country.

Honestly, the majoritarian model seems kinda messed up to me. The fact that 51% of people in the country get to decide what is best for 100% of us is kinda worrying. And the idea that it could go lower, such as 33%, or even 20% is incredibly concerning.

[Animeniax]

If any of the Republican contenders wins this election, I'm moving to Canada.

[Kraco]

However, that is what I thought. Yet, after considering it, I think that would be a terrible idea.

You should switch to a direct election, like we did years ago. First round can have plenty of candidates and if none of them gets over 50% of the votes, there will be a second round with the top two contestants, ensuring the winner has over 50% of the votes.


Honestly, the majoritarian model seems kinda messed up to me. The fact that 51% of people in the country get to decide what is best for 100% of us is kinda worrying.

That's what democracy is supposed to be. A tyranny of the majority. In practice with stray laws to protect the minorities because everybody belongs to a minority of some sort, if only nonvitally due to their interests. It's best not to forget that democracy isn't any ideal form of government, it's simply the least bad we can have at the moment, long-term effects considered.

[EpyonNext]

Honestly, the majoritarian model seems kinda messed up to me. The fact that 51% of people in the country get to decide what is best for 100% of us is kinda worrying. And the idea that it could go lower, such as 33%, or even 20% is incredibly concerning.

It is lower, which is really what makes it shitty. Presidential election turn out for 2008 was 56%. Thats 132.6 million voters out of the eligible 231.2m. Compare that to the 2010 Census: 308 millon people in the US. That puts us at 43% of the population deciding who our next president should be as opposed to 60-65% of it doing so. If you got a friend who doesn't vote, slap some sense into em and make them realize they are the problem with this country.

[Sapphire]

So it's the non-voters fault for not picking who the next psychopath in charge is?

[Carnage]

So it's the non-voters fault for not picking who the next psychopath in charge is?

If everyone voted, there would likelier be a better representation of what the country wants in our government. Well, first our country needs to be better educated, so maybe its a good thing the other half doesn't vote.

[Edort4]

Always wondered why take so much effort to end choosing between 2 guys that are the same at a 95%. You just have to take a look at the campaing supporters and funding lobbies, its almost the same ones. Wouldnt it be better to flip a coin and save money to the tax payers?

They have those fake elections to be legitimated and take away from the people the right to fight against the soft oligarchyc-dictatorship all goverments have become since the USSR fell.

[rockmanj]

It is not like the popular vote actually picks the president in the US anyway. We have that electoral college that actually chooses.

[Pandadice]

That's true. It seems like popular vote generally correlates to electoral college votes (With a few exceptions of course), but it's not really that simple. For instance, Obama beat McCain by 7 percentage points, yet Obama got almost 200 more electoral college votes. In '96 Clinton got 49% of the popular vote, but won by 220 more electoral college votes. The whole electoral college system has it's pros and cons, no doubt. But it does seem a little messed up when someone can actually lose the popular vote, yet still win the presidency. Bush went to West Virginia like 3 times iirc when campaigning, because, if it's winner take all, then one West Virginia vote is worth essentially 2 California votes. And, this is good because it does actually give these smaller states (such as WV) a voice in the outcome. Whereas, if it was simply popular vote then the candidates would just spend all their time in NY and CA.

But really, no matter how I look at it, it just seems like some big game where each guy is trying to collect as many points as possible. And I think it's kinda depressing that our country, the leaders of our country, the foundation of our country, is all basically just some big game where candidates calculate the most efficient means through which to gain points. Man, politics is depressing.

[Kraco]

Whereas, if it was simply popular vote then the candidates would just spend all their time in NY and CA.


We have direct elections and most of the candidates visit quite a few smaller towns in addition to the obvious bigger cities they can't afford to neglect. Of course there are also rare candidates who don't care to appear to represent the whole country but rather concentrate their efforts to the traditionally stronger areas of their party or otherwise likely supporters. Although no such person has yet made it to the office. I guess people still at some level think that a president must think of all citizens to be credible, not just their own clique. But then again, Finland is only comparable to a single state of the USA, or two, depending on how you look at it, so it could be irrelevant to compare the situations at all.

[rockmanj]

This actually made me lol: http://wonkette.com/466285/obama-hugs-black-guy The video even more so. I hope I never get caught hugging a black person in public. I might end up getting myself in trouble in the future.

This was also entertaining: http://us.cnn.com/video/?hpt=hp_t3#/video/bestoftv/2012/03/08/sot-point-breitbart-pollak-obama-tape.cnn

[Assassin]

Im astonished at how many people think voting for a candidate has an effect on government. The president is simply the spokes person. It doesnt matter if he's black, white, whiter, or a super smart panda. The "government" remains the same. The same people shuffle into different positions, the same senators and representatives continue 'serving' and the same policies persist, whether foreign, economic, defense or social.

Considering the influence the US has on global economic and military policy, it is down right scary to think of how this process will progress and unfold.

[Y]

A buddy at work pointed me to http://www.americanselect.org/

It's a website to pick a 3rd candidate to run for president if you're not happy with the 2 parties' nominees. You gauge some initial values, then answer questions about your political leanings to adjust where you stand on all sorts of topics from immigration to campaign finance reform. The site's purpose is to gather enough user input to actually nominate and back an independent candidate in the 2012 presidential elections.

I've signed up, but personally I think it's fruitless and just a way to make us feel like we're not powerless in this $$$$ political system.

This is an old thread and an older post, but I'd like to note that no one should support this group's movements, as they are quite literally a pyramid scheme.

[dragonrage]

This is an old thread and an older post, but I'd like to note that no one should support this group's movements, as they are quite literally a pyramid scheme.

I believe you, but care to elaborate?

[Animeniax]

I think Obama's reelection will hinge heavily on the selection of a new running mate, not only to shore up the 2012 election, but to get a new name/face out there to succeed him in 2016. Biden is the Rodney Dangerfield of the democratic party. Any suggestions as to who he should run with?


This is an old thread and an older post, but I'd like to note that no one should support this group's movements, as they are quite literally a pyramid scheme.

Personally I think it's a pipe dream and a waste of time to be involved in internet movements. Like a viable 3rd candidate will be selected or have any chance at competing in a 2 party system. I thought the site was nifty for gauging your own stances on certain policies. For instance, when I selected my care levels for the different issues, I found I was apparently not as concerned with immigration reform and other topics as I previously thought. I guess having to gauge my interest with a slider made me think about it a little more critically to understand how little I cared for the topic.

[Y]

I will reproduce, in full, Main Painframe's posts regarding the subject.


Americans Elect is still being tight-lipped about their donors, but they're fairly open about their leadership and prime staff, which includes a lot of CEOs, prominent conservatives, and other assorted controversial figures.

Take, for instance, Michael and Kellen Arno, Americans Elect's Ballot Access Advisor and National Field Director. This is important because they are also President and Vice-President of Arno Political Consultants, a for-profit signature-gathering firm which has acquired somewhat of a reputation for fraudulent signatures and other ballot fraud, almost always in while working for a big business, a far-right cause, or a Republican organization. Both Arnos appear to work almost exclusively with Republicans, and one conservative think-tank brags that Michael "has been involved in every Republican Presidential Campaign since 1980". Other sites corroborate the heavy Republican leanings of the Arnos and their company. Of course, hiring a company with a strong reputation for ballot fraud doesn't bode well for Americans Elect's whole "decide-everything-by-ballot" strategy!

Dan Winslow, their Chief Legal Counsel, was previously Mitt Romney's chief legal counsel. Also, he's currently a freshman member of the Massachusetts House of Representatives, a Republican who campaigned on spending cuts and "entitlement reform", wants to cut public employee pay and benefits, and has vowed never to increase taxes while a State Representative.

Peter Ackerman, the Chairman of Americans Elect, is an ex-chairman of the Cato Institute. Before Americans Elect changed their tax status from a Section 527 political party to a Section 501c4 social welfare organization (which, unlike a political party, does not have to disclose its donors), he donated $1.55 million to Americans Elect and is currently the only donor whose identity we know. He also has ties to many corporations, including being a high-level executive or owner in no less than three companies. Peter's son, Elliot Ackerman, is the Chief Operations Officer of Americans Elect and has no particular history or qualifications other than nepotism.

Also among their list of supporters is Mark McKinnon, executive in two media/communications companies. Claiming that personally meeting with George W. Bush was what inspired him to become a Republican, he was Bush's chief media advisor during Bush's campaigns, and gave the McCains some advice as a "close friend". Late last year, he helped found No Labels, a "grassroots" political non-profit which aims to be "a centrist equivalent to the tea-party movement on the right and MoveOn on the left", championing the cause of bipartisanship and protecting self-proclaimed moderates from so-called radicals from the far-left and far-right.

Not to worry, though, it's not JUST Republicans. Americans Elect also boasts such Democratic names as Will Marshall, a New Democrat and founding member of the DLC, as well as the president of the neocon DLC thinktank known as the Progressive Policy Institute. And let's not forget his memorable service on the Committee for the Liberation of Iraq!

Of course, there's also an array of CEOs and high-ranking execs involved. Finance seems to be particularly overrepresented in their leadership, and I count no less than nine members who are high-level members of companies with names like "Strategic Investment Group", "Lionstone Capital Management", and "JP Morgan Chase & Co". They also count the Managing Director of the International Institute of Finance among their numbers.

If that's not enough for you, there's plenty more questionable connections to be had.

This is all very very important, because the people influential enough to be listed as "Leadership" are very likely candidates for AE's "Candidate Certification Committee", which has the sole authority to veto proposed candidates. While they can be overruled by a supermajority vote from all registered members of the AE party (not just 66% of the voters, but 66% of the people on the membership rolls), that is a ridiculous and almost impossible requirement.

In addition, they've attempted to deflect criticism based on their big-money donations by claiming that the money they've raised from big-money donors so far is just "low-interest loans" that will be paid back as they get more small donors. At first glance, it sounds reasonable. But what that really means is that a significant percentage of real donations will be diverted to paying off (with interest) the original investments from their rich initial "donors". It amounts to admitting that every time someone donates a dollar to Americans Elect, part of that dollar goes directly to paying off their richest supporters. Which, I suppose, is another reason why they want to keep their finances secret as long as possible.


They've attempted to justify taking money from big donors by saying that those big corporate donations were just "loans" that they will pay back once they've got enough small donor money coming in. Assuming that they are telling the truth, which is of course impossible to verify since they're so secretive about their finances, that means that the businesses will get all their money back, plus interest. So they're putting money in because they're guaranteed a profit if Americans Elect gets enough donations.

Why does it matter how many donations they get? Because that's where they're going to get the money to pay off the big donors! If you gave them any money, a portion of your donation would be forwarded to their corporate supporters and richer donors...including the chairman. The rest of your money would go to their marketing department, where it would be used to attract more supporters and convince more people to donate. What little money they're actually spending on political stuff will no doubt go to the political consulting company run by their National Field Director. The chance of actually making a difference in the political field is just a bonus; the main objective is to make everybody involved as much money as possible.

It's not too different from a Ponzi scheme, really, except that the initial investors are all in on the scam, and the later "investors" are regular people donating money with no expectation of returns. As long as this fake political party keeps its supporters' spirits high enough to keep getting donations of free money, the scam won't fall apart until the Feds investigate their finances. They're clearly intending to make this a long-term hustle, too; since the organization's stated goal is only to get a candidate on the ballots, supporters won't be as disheartened when Americans Elect cheaps out on the actual campaign and gets crushed in the general election.


It's similar to a Ponzi scheme, with one key difference: in a traditional Ponzi scheme, all participants are investing money with expectations of getting a big return on that money, and the scammer has to keep bringing in more new investors to get money with which to fake those huge returns for earlier investors. Since those new investors are also expecting returns on their investment, the conman always owes more money than he has, and the scheme eventually collapses.

Since Americans Elect presents itself as a political party, on the other hand, most of the people sending in their money are donors who don't expect to ever get a dime of that money back. That means that the Ackermans and Arnos are bringing in more money without actually increasing the amounts they'll eventually have to pay out, making the scheme theoretically sustainable and allowing them to put a lot of that money into marketing the scheme to the wider public.

The catch, of course, is that it's most likely illegal. They just haven't been investigated for it yet, and the extent of their activities is unknown because they registered with the IRS as a nonprofit group rather than as a political party. Sooner or later, they'll get investigated by either the FEC or the IRS and they'll quickly break down after that.

In fact, wanting to be exempt from campaign finance laws was one of the two major reasons that AE's predecessor group, Unity08, was shuttered. Apparently, they felt that the FEC's individual contribution limits were a bipartisan conspiracy to prevent small third-parties from breaking the dependence on big money, and that there was no way they could build a movement from millions of small donors if restricted to receiving no more than $5,000 per person. The difference here is that Unity08 wrote to the FEC and asked if they could do it, while Americans Elect seems to have decided to simply do it and hope the FEC doesn't notice.

Wall of text.

[dragonrage]

romney-says-get-rid-of-planned-parenthood (being idiotic romney)

I wish God made him a poor woman then he would know the exact extent of what he is saying here.
(http://politicalticker.blogs.cnn.com/2012/03/13/when-romney-says-get-rid-of-planned-parenthood-he-means/?iref=obnetwork)

[Carnage]

Yippee ki yay motherfuckers, its going to come down to ohio and florida tonight. If Romney can't win both of them then he has no shot. If he wins both of them, then he has a very good chance I believe but nothing in the bag. Im personally ambivalent for the most part between the two candidates.

[UChessmaster]

Florida is going to give me a heart attack.

[Carnage]

It doesn't matter where florida goes now. Obama is leading by 10% pts with 16% of the vote counted for in Ohio. He's already won this election.

My money is on a Bloomberg running republican in 2016. He would actually give republicans a chance, and they have no one else.

[Ryllharu]

I don't even know why I vote...

No matter what, either the incumbent, or the same party always wins each position up for a vote in my state.

[Animeniax]

Am I giving too much credence to what CNN's reporting? Because it looks like Romney is winning.

I wonder how much truth there is to the feeling that America is/was still not ready for a black president. This doesn't reflect my personal view, and Chris Matthews of MSNBC and others have suggested the racial element in the hate for President Obama. It sucks that Romney could win for no better reason.

[Carnage]

I think a sizeable portion of the country hates the fact that we have a black president, but obviously not enough to keep Obama from becoming one.

In any case, Im getting the fuck out of New York and moving to Colorado!

[Animeniax]

I think a sizeable portion of the country hates the fact that we have a black president, but obviously not enough to keep Obama from becoming one.

In any case, Im getting the fuck out of New York and moving to Colorado!

Considering how close the popular vote is, their numbers are higher than they should be IMO.

Don't move to CO just yet (though it's a lovely place regardless). There will be federal fights to squash the legalization of marijuana in Colorado.

[Dark Dragon]

The result isn't even remotely surprising. In the last year or so, the GOP have somehow systematically piss off almost every group of voters who aren't hardcore conservative or rich white men. I'm not sure they understand that you don't win an election that is based off popularity votes by appealing to less people.

[Carnage]

GOP will have to sell itself hard to either the gay/feminist vote or the hispanic vote. Their odds are probably best with the hispanic vote, since they're very religious and the GOP may sway them with a promise for jobs. It'll definitely have to cut out the evangelical bullshit if it wants to survive beyond the next election.

[Dark Dragon]

All of the attempts to appeal to conservatives successfully isolated a lot of women. If you look at the poll numbers, Obama was up like 40% in term of women voters. I think what essentially swayed this election was women and Hispanic voters.

[Death BOO Z]

donald trump's twitter (https://twitter.com/realDonaldTrump)(I have no reason to believe it's a fake one)

I really can't stress it enough, But I hate this guy.

[UChessmaster]

Obama! gay marriage legal in 3 states and marijuana in 1!

[Animeniax]

The result isn't even remotely surprising. In the last year or so, the GOP have somehow systematically piss off almost every group of voters who aren't hardcore conservative or rich white men. I'm not sure they understand that you don't win an election that is based off popularity votes by appealing to less people.

Actually it's surprising how well Romney did considering the GOP's platform and his shadiness as a candidate. We should be shocked and reviled that almost 50% of the popular vote went to Romney, considering how many groups his platform alienates. In the end, Obama won on electoral votes, and not really on the popular vote.


GOP will have to sell itself hard to either the gay/feminist vote or the hispanic vote. Their odds are probably best with the hispanic vote, since they're very religious and the GOP may sway them with a promise for jobs. It'll definitely have to cut out the evangelical bullshit if it wants to survive beyond the next election.
To appeal to the Hispanic vote, the GOP will have to take a moderate position on illegal immigration, amnesty, and citizenship... all of which are opposed by a majority of conservatives and white males. With the way the country continues to change demographically, the GOP will have to change to a shadow of its former self to contend on a national level in the future. They can win local/state elections based on conservative voting blocks, but nationally they represent too little of the populace and its views.

[Ryllharu]

It pisses me off that our entire election is decided by 11 or so states. The electoral college is fine, but the "swing states" have far too much power.

The candidates ignore every other state.

[Animeniax]

donald trump's twitter (https://twitter.com/realDonaldTrump)(I have no reason to believe it's a fake one)

I really can't stress it enough, But I hate this guy.

As happy as I am that Obama won re-election, I'm not looking forward to another 4 years of Fox news, Trump, and conservative pundits talking shit and further trying to divide the country. Sometimes I long for the Republicans to be back in power, as that's when their pundits are quiet and disappear from the limelight.


It pisses me off that our entire election is decided by 11 or so states. The electoral college is fine, but the "swing states" have far too much power.

The candidates ignore every other state.
That's only because the other states are already pretty much decided for one party or the other.

[Ryllharu]

As happy as I am that Obama won re-election, I'm not looking forward to another 4 years of MSNBC, Maddow, random celebrities, and liberal pundits talking shit and further trying to divide the country. Sometimes I long for the Democrats to be back in power in the House, as that's when their pundits are quiet and disappear from the limelight.
FTFY, no need to thank me.

Please, lets not pretend they are bad on only one side.

[Dark Dragon]

Actually it's surprising how well Romney did considering the GOP's platform and his shadiness as a candidate. We should be shocked and reviled that almost 50% of the popular vote went to Romney, considering how many groups his platform alienates. In the end, Obama won on electoral votes, and not really on the popular vote.

America was and still is to a large extent a nation built from puritans, so it's not really surprising to see that Romney won most of the states that Republican are expected to win. There are a lot of people who simply vote base on party line and out of habit. For example, it's almost pointless for Dem to vote for national elections Texas because of the imbalance in party power. The same could be said for California and New york where Democrats are expected to win regardless.

The scary thing is that as bad as people make Romney out to be, he's still fairly moderate by the GOP standards.

[Animeniax]

FTFY, no need to thank me.

Please, lets not pretend they are bad on only one side.

Definitely didn't mean to infer it's one sided, but the Dem pundits weren't nearly as bad when Bush was in power as the Rep pundits were during Obama's first 4 years. And the message the Republican pundits put out just seems a lot more hateful.


America was and still is to a large extent a nation built from puritans, so it's not really surprising to see that Romney won most of the states that Republican are expected to win. There are a lot of people who simply vote base on party line and out of habit. For example, it's almost pointless for Dem to vote for national elections Texas because of the imbalance in party power. The same could be said for California and New york where Democrats are expected to win regardless.

The scary thing is that as bad as people make Romney out to be, he's still fairly moderate by the GOP standards.

I think some states vote along racial lines as much as anything else.

It's hard to say what Romney's stances are on issues because he's changed so many of them from the time he was a governor to the Republican primary to now. I was almost looking forward to him winning the presidency because he does seem like a moderate and he might be able to work with Congress to get things passed. Unfortunately Obama will have another 4 years of zero compromise from the Republicans in the House.

[Ryllharu]

Definitely didn't mean to infer it's one sided, but the Dem pundits weren't nearly as bad when Bush was in power as the Rep pundits were during Obama's first 4 years. And the message the Republican pundits put out just seems a lot more hateful.MSNBC was worse when Bush was in power than FoxNews is now. I take it you never watched Countdown with Keith Olbermann? It was a solid hour of him throwing insults at everyone in the GOP or similar while pretending he had 10 percent of Edward R. Murrow's class.

Don't get me wrong, Hannity was always a jackoff too.

[Animeniax]

MSNBC was worse when Bush was in power than FoxNews is now. I take it you never watched Countdown with Keith Olbermann? It was a solid hour of him throwing insults at everyone in the GOP or similar while pretending he had 10 percent of Edward R. Murrow's class.

Don't get me wrong, Hannity was always a jackoff too.

No one listened to Olbermann's rants anyway :p

[Dark Dragon]

I think some states vote along racial lines as much as anything else.

It's hard to say what Romney's stances are on issues because he's changed so many of them from the time he was a governor to the Republican primary to now. I was almost looking forward to him winning the presidency because he does seem like a moderate and he might be able to work with Congress to get things passed. Unfortunately Obama will have another 4 years of zero compromise from the Republicans in the House.

Obama actually didn't do that bad (http://www.politifact.com/truth-o-meter/promises/obameter/) in term of keeping promises for his first term. There is no doubt that the GOP put up a lot of resistance toward Obama, but he isn't also without blame here. Obama didn't do much to compromise with the GOP, regardless of what he said.

To be honest, we're better off going back to News channel actually just broadcasting news. All of these political "opinions" only serve to embarrass both parties.

[Animeniax]

Obama actually didn't do that bad (http://www.politifact.com/truth-o-meter/promises/obameter/) in term of keeping promises for his first term. There is no doubt that the GOP put up a lot of resistance toward Obama, but he isn't also without blame here. Obama didn't do much to compromise with the GOP, regardless of what he said.

Obama did great his first two years, then the tea party and conservatives took over the House. From what I read, Obama was criticized for caving too quickly to Republican demands or resistance to compromise on things like the budget.


To be honest, we're better off going back to News channel actually just broadcasting news. All of these political "opinions" only serve to embarrass both parties.
I agree, but with Fox influencing their local Fox affiliate stations and MSNBC influencing their local NBC stations, we have to rely on CNN (which has a liberal bias) and their ridiculous reporting for somewhat impartial news.

[Dark Dragon]

Obama did great his first two years, then the tea party and conservatives took over the House. From what I read, Obama was criticized for caving too quickly to Republican demands or resistance to compromise on things like the budget.

I should clarify

What i meant was that Obama failed to create support for himself within the GOP. He was more effective at campaigning than actual politic. He didn't socialize or support any republican and mostly kept to his own party, which created problems when it come time for compromises. Most of those issues were resolved by either A. forcefully pushed through (Obamacare is one particular big one) or B. Obama would cave to GOP demand completely because of lack of support. There was little actual compromise going on.

[Ryllharu]

Agreed. Obama's problem is he is a shitty leader. It's always, "my way or the highway."

The other side to that is he only acts once someone in the media wonders where the hell he is. The Gulf Oil Spill was a perfect example of that. He only starting using his power after the media asked where he was after a few dozen days, prior to that, he did nothing. Dutch ships specializing in spill control were left to sit offshore in international waters instead of being able to help (something he could have done with an executive order).

[UChessmaster]

How does being cockblocked makes him a shitty leader?

[Carnage]

MSNBC was worse when Bush was in power than FoxNews is now. I take it you never watched Countdown with Keith Olbermann? It was a solid hour of him throwing insults at everyone in the GOP or similar while pretending he had 10 percent of Edward R. Murrow's class.

Don't get me wrong, Hannity was always a jackoff too.

MSNBC is a steaming pile of shit no doubt, and just as biased as Fox News on the opposite side of the spectrum. But no network can really be as bad as Fox News, which basically feeds itself to rednecks (which is probably the dumbest demographic with access to television). I can't think of anything that can really compare with Fox feeding birthers and hicks who still think Obama is a kenyan born muslim.

And MSNBC was doing its job during the Bush years. He was objectively one of the worst presidents we've ever had. $4 trillion down the drain in starting wars in both Iraq and Afghanistan, the patriot act, expanding the deficit by giving us Bush tax-cuts without paying for them in the budget. Fox News is pretending Obama is a muslim communist. But Bush actually was one of our worst presidents.

And I agree Republicans will have to modernize their platform with regards to the religious right, but as far as the business class goes I think the party can still hold a lot of leverage. If Democrats ever did decide to drastically raise tax rates, many business owners might retaliate by collectively hiring less and damaging the economy in order to give the democrats a bad name. Hell the republicans were obstructionists toward any economic progress whatsoever in the past four years to prevent Obama from winning, and they did a good job. At least 60% of the country I believe blames him for the slow recovery, considering polls during the summer showed that 60% of the popular vote would prefer a generic republican candidate to the incumbent.

And I have no idea where the bullshit of Obama not compromising is coming from. He had to force Obamacare through (which I oppose by the way) because of the Republican filibuster in the Senate. Mitch McConell outright said his party's number one goal was to prevent Obama's re-election. Obama didn't raise taxes. He supported the stimulus which was basically a giant tax cut. He's spent a shitload on the military. Gay marriage is still illegal. Where hasn't he tried to compromise? He's not my ideal candidate in the least, I'm a social conservative. But there's still a large difference between the GOP and the Left as far as how full of shit each party is.

[Kraco]

But no network can really be as bad as Fox News, which basically feeds itself to rednecks (which is probably the dumbest demographic with access to television). I can't think of anything that can really compare with Fox feeding birthers and hicks who still think Obama is a kenyan born muslim.

Damn. Fox Finland doesn't broadcast its own news, from what I can see. I have never watched the news on the channel, but the news program is labeled after a Finnish news agency, so I reckon they merely buy the whole thing as is to fulfill some random clause in the broadcast permission to have news. I would have wanted to see their own, funny news if they really are as hilarious as you say. But I guess it would have cost too much to localize such a format.

[Archangel]

http://cdn.uproxx.com/wp-content/uploads/2012/08/obama-cnn-dance.gif

[Animeniax]

Damn. Fox Finland doesn't broadcast its own news, from what I can see. I have never watched the news on the channel, but the news program is labeled after a Finnish news agency, so I reckon they merely buy the whole thing as is to fulfill some random clause in the broadcast permission to have news. I would have wanted to see their own, funny news if they really are as hilarious as you say. But I guess it would have cost too much to localize such a format.

Your local Fox affiliate isn't a problem for bias, they only sometimes air segments from their pundits. The problem is Fox News channel and Fox Business, cable channels that I doubt are available in Europe or anywhere outside the US, for which you are lucky.

[Carnage]

Yeah, the entire Fox network belongs to NewsCorp, which is the largest news media organization in the world.