The American Politics thread

[Lostman]

Seems like Mittens has gone a bit too much into the right for the independents.
Independent voters are rejecting Romney-CNN

[Fusion]

It's really early, but things are looking good for Obama at the moment. His approval rating is now at 50% (while Congress' rating continues to be at all-time lows) and he's comfortably ahead of any of the Republican challengers in polls.

What really worries me though is this looming conflict with Iran. That is likely going to cause oil prices to skyrocket and cause the economic recovery to stall right before election time. Obama will get the blame for that, whether it's his fault or not.

[Ikki]

Originally Posted by Fusion

Ikki, I have no other way to put it, it’s just preposterous to think that election rigging is the reason for Santorum’s surge. Who is rigging the election for him? It will have to be a massive conspiracy that needs the involvement of the Republican Establishment to succeed. Considering the establishment candidate is Romney, how is this being pulled off? Why is Romney, with his strong connections and deep pockets, not aware of this supposed rigging? Come on mate, that’s just way out there.

I think they're all, except for Paul, the establishment candidates. That includes Obama.

Anyway, I am not saying they are making the election a foregone conclusion or they are writing in votes for dead people. I do however doubt that the process is completely legitimate. That can be exemplified by what happened in Nevada and Maine. It is an out there kind of thing to say, but this is the office of arguably the most powerful country in the world. Do I think the powers to be, the powers the benefit, will leave it to chance? I think that is an even more out there proposition.

Things like the media though are definitely bought and sold. Honest punditry and journalism in the mainstream just does not exist, or if it does it is only there for a glimmer.

[Lostman]

Its a caucus, of course there are going to be **** ups.
The whole process is intended to be so.
Add citizens united to this joke of a system, and I am sure there are votes being paid for.

[Spikey]

Originally Posted by Ikki

I think they're all, except for Paul, the establishment candidates. That includes Obama.

pretty sure you'd find Newt's a Washington outsider......



Saw this posted somewhere:


man

[silentstriker]

One guy was a governer and has been constantly running for PResident for six years, the other guy was the speaker of the ****ing house of representatives, while the third guy was a senator until he got kicked out by 17 points and the final guy was been serving in Washington in the house since the 19th century. The guy opposing them was a senator and now is the President. Let's not kid ourselves, none of them are 'washington outsiders' here, not that the term means anything mind you.

[Ikki]

Paul is certainly what you would call a Washington outsider in the sense that he is simply not of the Capitol Hill gang. He is not one of them. He does not take money from special interests nor do they even waste time anymore trying to sway him. The rest are subservient to one cause or more: the military industrial complex, wall street, big pharma, etc. Paul is nothing like them. Paul is a statesman, they're politicians.

More on Maine ongoings. I don't think much of Maddow, but this is a good report.

Maine Republicans Urged to Reconsider Mitt Romney's Win 'The Rachel Maddow Show' - YouTube

[silentstriker]

You can't call yourself a statesmen and be so rigid in every position that you will never compromise on anything. That's not good governance.

[Howe_zat]

The existence of Rick Santorum makes me want to drown things.

[Prince EWS]

Originally Posted by Howe_zat

The existence of Rick Santorum makes me want to drown things.

Same here, and when we both agree on the repulsiveness of a politician, it really says something.

[Burgey]

Originally Posted by Spikey

pretty sure you'd find Newt's a Washington outsider......



Saw this posted somewhere:


man

Is this a sarcastic post? Gingrich is the ultimate insider. He was Speaker of the House of Representatives ffs.

[Spikey]

newt's going down the whole 'i'm not a part of the elite/they think they're smarter than you!" road which obviously is just so

[Ikki]

Originally Posted by silentstriker

You can't call yourself a statesmen and be so rigid in every position that you will never compromise on anything. That's not good governance.

Is it better to be like Romney, changing your positions several times before office; or Obama and change your positions several times after getting into office?

Changing your views is not my definition of a statesman. Being respectful, honest and honourable, and working hard for your constituents and fellow citizens is what I think being a statesman is about. Anyway, Paul is strict on certain principles of governance - which your founders implemented to guarantee good governance. He doesn't really care how you decide to govern yourself apart from following those rules. That is where his rigidity is a virtue. For example, he is against abortion himself; but he believes it is upto the States to decide. Each state can decide as they wish. The principles are to follow the federal model and not allow the majority to condemn the entire nation; and also not to give the central govt. power it should not have.

To go back to my fundamental point when saying Paul is not the establishment candidate: he is not the candidate that wants the status quo to survive. He is not selling himself out for special interests. His cause is for real change, regardless if you agree with that or not. The rest are a different shade of grey.

[Spikey]

when you think about it, the one thing American politics needs more than anything else is more politicians who refuse to compromise

[silentstriker]

Originally Posted by Ikki

Is it better to be like Romney, changing your positions several times before office; or Obama and change your positions several times after getting into office?

Yes, I would rather have either of them to be honest.

Originally Posted by Ikki

Changing your views is not my definition of a statesman. Being respectful, honest and honourable, and working hard for your constituents and fellow citizens is what I think being a statesman is about. Anyway, Paul is strict on certain principles of governance - which your founders implemented to guarantee good governance. He doesn't really care how you decide to govern yourself apart from following those rules. That is where his rigidity is a virtue. For example, he is against abortion himself; but he believes it is upto the States to decide. Each state can decide as they wish. The principles are to follow the federal model and not allow the majority to condemn the entire nation; and also not to give the central govt. power it should not have.

That's all well and good but the only thing that would accomplish is gridlock as we're already seeing. You have to have give and take if you want anything done.