The American Politics thread

[Agent Nationaux]

Originally Posted by Spark

To be fair, a lot of Dems said similar things from 2000-2004.

To be completely fair, it's also hardly the most egregious thing this lot have said.

edit: Colour me surprised.

Pretty shocking that in an advanced nation like the US, politicians are acting like protesters against the government and hindering progress rather than compromising for the greater good of the nation.

Does the party actually come before the nation?

[Top_Cat]

Originally Posted by Fusion

I agree with SS regarding GOP’s viability in future elections. I think they are far from done. There are certain ideological things that they just can’t change on: abortion, gun rights, and issues dealing with race (in specific, African Americans). Those are some core values issues and the Republican party will die out before they concede on any of those points. However, immigration is one area where they can compromise. They might not like it and it will be a bitter pill to swallow for most of them, but it’s not an “defining” issue for them. The Republicans know they can’t be a viable national party while losing the Hispanic vote by 70%. So IMO, they will soften their stance on immigration in order to appeal to the Hispanic vote bank. They don’t need to win that segment or even tie it, they just can’t lose it by 70%. They need George Bush numbers of winning around 40 to 45% of that vote bank. It’s a no brainer in my view. Most Hispanics are socially conservative. Take away the immigration hate mongering by the GOP, and suddenly many of them might consider voting for the party.

The softening on Immigration has already started. I’m hearing leading GOP voices talk about “comprehensive” immigration reform, something that was unthinkable even during the Republican primaries. Local talk show hosts in Texas are suddenly open to the idea. So are some national voices:

Rick Santorum: Immigration reform must be accomplished

Sean Hannity: I’ve evolved on immigration and support a pathway to citizenship

Nah, I definitely think they'll moderate on abortion. The only opinions we seem to hear on it are the thick**** extremists, all of whom have been bollocked in the press and local elections. Those views, from all reports, do not reflect the majority of the Republican base. ****, Roe vs Wade was authored by a Republican-nominated judge, historically the Republican party has been much closer to the centre on the issue than is portrayed.

On guns, well there's no need to moderate, really, because there's no debate; both sides are on the same page.....

[Spark]

I don't think "moderation" quite covers what I think they need to do. "Get out of the Fox-induced echo chamber and into the real world" is closer.

[silentstriker]

Bush's immigration proposal was EXTREMELY liberal - hell, even some democrats thought it went too far. There is no "fundamental" change. If there is one thing the Republicans are good at, it's moving the goalpost and pretending it was always there.

[silentstriker]

Originally Posted by Burgey

That was a very interesting read.

Meanwhile.....

Republicans ‘Test’ For Voting Fraud, Wind Up In Custody | TPMMuckraker

The stupid. It burns!

Hahaha. So great.

[grecian]

Originally Posted by Uppercut

I just don't think you can conjecture very accurately. In 2000 no one saw 9/11 and the war in Iraq coming, in 2004 no one expected the financial crisis and in 2008 the tea party were nothing. Over the course of four years there's a pretty good chance we'll get an unforeseeable incident with heavy political consequences.

Tbh IMHO the Tea-Party cost them this election and possibly the last. The thing is I'm certain that many GOPs have had stupid views on religion, abortion, Tax and all sorts of things in the past, but no-one, or hardly anyone, actually thought to voice them. Nowadays certain people are saying this stuff out loud, because they think millions agree with them, because of the effect of these people. Yet they need to be reminded that the tea-party only preach to the converted.

There is no doubt in my mind that politically the USofA is Republican in their capitalist views, which seems odd after what FDR did for the country, but they're pro small government, anti-tax, even internationally they're pro-Israel (whatever that means), but they're not voting in significant numbers because of the bat-**** crazy. I still love how many pro-marketeers in the TP have decided to hate Wall Street

[silentstriker]

Haha I just heard Romney got less Mormon vote than John McCain? That would be such a hilarious fact if true.

[Spikey]

Overconfident Romney was so sure of victory that he spent 25 grand on victory fireworks | Capitol Hill Blue

Romney’s Get Out the Vote Fiasco « Commentary Magazine

[Spikey]

MY WIFE’S LOVER

My wife is having an affair with a government executive. His role is to manage a project whose progress is seen worldwide as a demonstration of American leadership. (This might seem hyperbolic, but it is not an exaggeration.) I have met with him on several occasions, and he has been gracious. (I doubt if he is aware of my knowledge.) I have watched the affair intensify over the last year, and I have also benefited from his generosity. He is engaged in work that I am passionate about and is absolutely the right person for the job. I strongly feel that exposing the affair will create a major distraction that would adversely impact the success of an important effort. My issue: Should I acknowledge this affair and finally force closure? Should I suffer in silence for the next year or two for a project I feel must succeed? Should I be “true to my heart” and walk away from the entire miserable situation and put the episode behind me? NAME WITHHELD

http://www.nytimes.com/2012/07/15/ma...yond.html?_r=0

oh please please please.

oh wait we haven't talked about it yet: CIA Director Petraeus quits: extramarital affair

ok we've caught up. oh please please please

[Ikki]

Originally Posted by Agent Nationaux

Pretty shocking that in an advanced nation like the US, politicians are acting like protesters against the government and hindering progress rather than compromising for the greater good of the nation.

Does the party actually come before the nation?

The US is a country that came together as a union of separate states. The ethos had originally been one where the people see the central government as a necessarily evil - not that it should be supported at all costs. Anyway, why should dissidence be seen as unpatriotic? As the saying goes; dissent is the highest form of patriotism.

Originally Posted by grecian

There is no doubt in my mind that politically the USofA is Republican in their capitalist views, which seems odd after what FDR did for the country, but they're pro small government, anti-tax, even internationally they're pro-Israel (whatever that means), but they're not voting in significant numbers because of the bat-**** crazy. I still love how many pro-marketeers in the TP have decided to hate Wall Street

Being a capitalist country and being small government isn't contradictory, if that is what you're saying. Neither is being pro-market and hating on Wall St - you can hate them for their part in encouraging government to legislate for their benefit. Also, not everyone thinks of FDR the same way - especially those that would be pro-capitalist and pro-small government.

[Top_Cat]

Originally Posted by Ikki

The US is a country that came together as a union of separate states. The ethos had originally been one where the people see the central government as a necessarily evil - not that it should be supported at all costs. Anyway, why should dissidence be seen as unpatriotic? As the saying goes; dissent is the highest form of patriotism.

Is that what you'd call what the Republicans have been doing? Dissention?

[silentstriker]

To call what the republicans have been doing for the last four years "dissent" is like calling World War II a skirmish.

[Top_Cat]

Certainly no reasonable person would call it 'patriotic'.

[Ikki]

Originally Posted by Top_Cat

Is that what you'd call what the Republicans have been doing? Dissention?

In which regard? It depends on your politics, I guess. For e.g. being against government mandated health care is perfectly reasonable. Just because you may have a liberal outlook and deem government intervention necessary doesn't mean you have the monopoly on reason/truth and certainly not on patriotism.

Terms like 'the greater good' are meaningless because there is no universal conception/agreement on that and, if you don't agree, naturally you may dissent.

[Prince EWS]

Originally Posted by Ikki

The US is a country that came together as a union of separate states. The ethos had originally been one where the people see the central government as a necessarily evil - not that it should be supported at all costs.

That doesn't mean it's still the most logical way to govern the country the best part of 250 years later though. The effects have globalisation have made the idea of small neighbouring pockets of one sovereign nation having vastly different laws and competing against each other for residence completely outdated. If states really were left to essentially go it on their own by the central government then some of them would inevitably fail or turn into complete ghettos; America would have the third world in their own backyard.

As you know I'm very small government as well, but there federal government should be for upholding the rights of the people ; not upholding the rights of the states to then impose their own their own restrictive and authoritarian laws. There's no point being small government if all you end up doing is creating an environment for someone beneath you to establish a big, imposing, high-taxing, high-spending, authoritarian government, as the end result for the people is exactly the same as if you'd done that yourself in the first place.