American Politics

[Alpha1]

His economy plan isn't horrible, but it isn't that great, either.

It’s a gimmick for the more well-to-do people. It’s similar to how Neal Boortz was claiming that implementing the FairTax would get us 10% growth each year.

China would be looking rather progressive. Canada is the new communist state. U.S. with its crony capitalism.

 

 

However, his downright hallucinatory comments on some things make me doubt his stability.

 

Shiny, do you see the cat? I see the cat.

http://www.henrygeorge.org/catsup.htm

 

“In my opinion, the least bad tax is the property tax on the unimproved value of land, the Henry George argument of many, many years ago” -- Milton Friedman

 

I don't support his widespread drilling ideas which contradict his so-called eviromental policy

Viable alternative to transportation needs? Where has the decades long moratorium gotten us to? Oil prices have gone up 20% in six weeks because of tensions between AlmondJoy and Israel.

 

I do support him on most of his stances regarding the death penalty

 

http://www.foxnews.com/politics/2011/07/16...lous-death-row/

 

"The cost of capital punishment is so enormous and so completely disproportionate to any deterrent effect, it's just a colossal waste of money," said Sacramento attorney Don Heller, a former prosecutor and author of the law. He said each execution has cost $330 million.

 

Unsure how true that figure is, but I know it’s an absurd amount.

 

“Only 13 inmates have been executed since the death penalty was restored in the Golden State in 1978”

 

It’s like a more expensive life sentence!

 

Didn’t Gingrich want the death penalty for drug traffickers, including pot smugglers?

 

Not as bad as opposing the AMBER alerts, which makes me doubt his sanity.

 

Well, his reasoning for doing so is that he thinks it’s unconstitutional to set it up. At least he’s more consistent with his views than many others, even if it goes against his position.

 

What do you think of his foreign policy? That’s where many have a problem with him.

 

“KELLY: If you were President Paul and it turned out you were wrong — that it turned out that Iran did have the bomb and it attacked Israel – would you step in?

 

PAUL: No. I’d let Israel take care of ‘em. Why should we interfere with Israel?

We’re always interfering with Israel when they wanna deal with their neighbors.”

 

 

Ron Paul: "Why shouldn't Iran have nukes?"

 

Tries to compare USSR/China to Iran….

 

As far as the Republican offerings for President, honestly, I wish they'd nominate Ron Paul. I don't agree with everything he says, but that's how it goes.

 

It’ll be interesting to see how it’ll go.

 

A new poll in Iowa shows 4-way tie with Paul at 19%. Paul only got 90 seconds of time in the last debate. This happened constantly in the last primaries. The media knows he’s not a partisan hack.

[gamblers]

dunno if this is the appropriate thread at all, but I just needed a place to express my unwanted feelings about the republican primaries...

 

I MISS THE OLD MITT ROMNEY WHEN HE WASN'T A HUMAN ROBOT contradictory as that sounds

 

NEWT GINGRICH OH NEWT....YOUR NAME.......I CANT STAND IT THAT'S ALREADY A STRIKE AGAINST YOU SERIOUSLY

 

RICK PERRY YOU'RE AWESOME KEEP MESSING UP YOUR BASIC FACTS IT HAS ABSOLUTELY OUTRAGEOUS COMEDIC VALUE

 

RON PAUL KEEP TELLING RICK THAT IT'S THE 'EPA'

 

HERMAN CAIN YOU SHOULD HAVE STAYED LONGER YOU AND PERRY ARE LIKE THE DYNAMIC DUO OR SOMETHING

 

RICK SANTORUM WHAT IS UP WITH YOU AND THE FOX NEWS HEADQUARTERS ANYWAY

 

MICHELE BACHMANN YOUR SMILE IS CREEPY BUT YOU ARE TOO AMUSING TO GIVE UP

 

JOHN HUNTSMAN WHY ARE YOU NOT A DEMOCRAT YOU LOVELY MODERATE YOU <333

 

GARY JOHNSON, WHERE ARE YOU EVEN?????!?!?!?!

 

 

 

 

...yeah um ok done now

 

/wanders off

[tanglepelt3]

Um . . . To tell you the truth, I don't really know anything about politics.

[elderberrysyrup]

So reviving this thread:

 

Let's talk politics.

 

I notice there's a lot of mud-slinging. Why is that? Can't repubs and demos talk with at least some civility?

[Princess Artemis]

Can't repubs and demos talk with at least some civility?

Apparently not. It's been that way as long as I can remember; recent times are nothing new.

[elderberrysyrup]

Apparently not. It's been that way as long as I can remember; recent times are nothing new.

Really? Well, I've only been in america for a couple years, so...

[Stripey]

My two cents on the upcoming elections, and the people that may be up for president. Feel free to disregard.

 

Personally, I don't like any of the candidates, nor can I agree enough with any of them to toss my vote to any of them. This includes goth republicans and democrats.

 

Rather than just complain about them though, I'm spreading the reminder that, as Americans, we have the right to write in ANY eligible person we want, and vote for them. I am going to exercise this right when I go to vote.

 

Who am I going to write in? (just in case y'all are curious) Mike Rowe. I figure that he's dealt with enough people, of ALL types, that he has a good handle on what they (the people who make up the country) need, and (I have to say it) Being president will be the ultimate dirty job for him.

[Kelkelen]

This includes goth republicans and democrats.

Best typo ever!

 

...I tend to feel like, by the time ANY politician has made it to a presidential campaign, they've lost integrity and are probably pretty compromised/corrupt/willing to do whatever's popular/necessary. I still try to vote for whoever I think will do the job best, but it doesn't mean that I have high hopes for politicians of any stripe.

 

I'm also registered as an independent, no-party affiliate, and believe it's blatantly unconstitutional that non-republicans/democrats aren't permitted to vote in state primaries.

[Princess Artemis]

I'm registered as None Of The Government's Business (which works out to no-party). Some parties would let me vote in state primaries if I wanted to, but I don't really want to give them the right to send me a ton of political mail.

 

That said, I am uncertain if it's been to our betterment to have Presidents and the Senate elected by the people. They were not, originally, and now the Several States have no one to represent them in our representative government. That's shifted the power away from the states and to the Fed, which is the lowest form of our government that should have the fewest duties :/

[Daydreamer09]

I'm also registered as an independent, no-party affiliate, and believe it's blatantly unconstitutional that non-republicans/democrats aren't permitted to vote in state primaries.

I really should probably switch my registration to independent. You wouldn't believe how much of a headache it was in Ohio the day before the primary just from being registered republican. All day long, the phone kept ringing from political campaigners calling. And these were the robotic prerecorded messages. Santorum, Romney and even Barbara Bush called. Being in a bellwether state sucks sometimes. ' (I didn't vote in the state primaries though, too busy with work)

 

Agree with you on the non republicans being able to vote in republican primaries. Should be the same if reversed to democrat primaries too.

 

Rather than just complain about them though, I'm spreading the reminder that, as Americans, we have the right to write in ANY eligible person we want, and vote for them. I am going to exercise this right when I go to vote.

I'm with you. This year I'm going to vote for Mickey Mouse! He's a guy everyone likes, right? ;D

 

NEWT GINGRICH OH NEWT....YOUR NAME.......I CANT STAND IT THAT'S ALREADY A STRIKE AGAINST YOU SERIOUSLY

That just reminded me of this.

http://www.gocomics.com/pearlsbeforeswine/2012/03/09

Edited April 7, 2012 by Daydreamer09

[shadow_claw]

Honestly, te government has been making me upset recently. I have found that, when it comes to Persidental election, there has been a gridlock. Each term, the President really doesn't get much passed because the other party tends to refuse to agree to it. I am not old enough to vote, but I am keeping close tabs on politics.

[7Deadly$ins]

Writing in a vote is throwing away your vote. You might as well not go at all.

[PointOfOrigin]

I'm also registered as an independent, no-party affiliate, and believe it's blatantly unconstitutional that non-republicans/democrats aren't permitted to vote in state primaries.

T-t-t-that... If you aren't registered in a party, you aren't allowed to vote?

Dear god, I'm now officially happy because I live in some other country than states.

 

. You wouldn't believe how much of a headache it was in Ohio the day before the primary just from being registered republican. All day long, the phone kept ringing from political campaigners calling.

 

 

They have the right to do that? Honestly, where I'm from if you did something like that to us, we wouldn't vote out of spite.

[Rosedamai]

Not American, so I don't have many things to contribute but to say:

 

Please guys. PLEASE choose carefully. Who becomes the POTUS affects the rest of the world, even the domestic policies of a country. Your country's policies set a trail for foreign policymakers to follow. Your country's policies set a stage for international policies to act out upon.

 

That's all I can say to you.

[7Deadly$ins]

T-t-t-that... If you aren't registered in a party, you aren't allowed to vote?

Dear god, I'm now officially happy because I live in some other country than states.

 

 

 

 

They have the right to do that? Honestly, where I'm from if you did something like that to us, we wouldn't vote out of spite.

State primaries aren't the same as the general election. Frankly it makes sense that you aren't allowed to vote in the primaries if you aren't registered to that parties' affiliation. If you aren't a Republican, will not vote for a Republican, then really you don't have much business choosing the Republican candidate. I can see the argument for Independents, though, but I don't think Democrats have much business choosing the Republican candidate.

 

This would lead to a lot fewer registered members, though, if anyone could vote in the primaries.

 

I know politics, and especially American politics, is somewhat complicated, but please don't jump to conclusions.

[ghb523]

T-t-t-that... If you aren't registered in a party, you aren't allowed to vote?

Dear god, I'm now officially happy because I live in some other country than states.

/facepalm

 

Just register as in independent, just do it once in your life, and you're done. That means that you are allowed to hate on either party and vote for anyone in the primaries.

[7Deadly$ins]

/facepalm

 

Just register as in independent, just do it once in your life, and you're done. That means that you are allowed to hate on either party and vote for anyone in the primaries.

Well -- that depends on States. As I was saying earlier, some states require that you are registered to participate in primaries. Others are more open (hence the term "open primary").

[Kelkelen]

State primaries aren't the same as the general election. Frankly it makes sense that you aren't allowed to vote in the primaries if you aren't registered to that parties' affiliation. If you aren't a Republican, will not vote for a Republican, then really you don't have much business choosing the Republican candidate. I can see the argument for Independents, though, but I don't think Democrats have much business choosing the Republican candidate.

 

This would lead to a lot fewer registered members, though, if anyone could vote in the primaries.

 

I know politics, and especially American politics, is somewhat complicated, but please don't jump to conclusions.

But what if I *might* vote for a Republican? In fact, the end result is that I most likely *will* vote for either a Republican or a Democrat -- there aren't that many third-party candidates by the time an election gets to the level I can vote at, plus third-parties have much less chance of actually winning an election, so many independents will vote for someone who they think stands a good chance of holding office. As an independent, I'm not affiliated with either side, nor am I automatically going to shun either side.

 

I don't see why I'm not allowed ANY vote in the primaries unless I subscribe to one of the two major parties. That is, in my opinion, blatantly unconstitutional. I refuse to support either major party, and I also do NOT want their propaganda being shoved in my face in the form of phone calls, junk mail, and spam, all because I let them put my name on a list.

[Princess Artemis]

Writing in a vote is throwing away your vote. You might as well not go at all.

That's a pretty lousy way to look at one of the responsibilities of being We the People. They work for us and get voted in by us. Writing in a candidate is one way of saying that none of the presented candidates are qualified to hold office. Not voting at all is saying you don't care.

 

You do know that some people actually do get elected as write-in candidates, yes? Not to President, but in the last Senate elections, a write-in candidate won.

 

It's pretty well carved in stone that Ron Paul won't be on the ballot, but I might vote for him anyway. Since I'm not registered Republican in California, I won't have a chance to vote in the primaries, and there's no way I'll vote for Obama or Santorum, and really unlikely I'd vote for Romney. That's not throwing away my vote, that's feeling neither presented candidate is qualified for the job.

 

Honestly, te government has been making me upset recently. I have found that, when it comes to Persidental election, there has been a gridlock. Each term, the President really doesn't get much passed because the other party tends to refuse to agree to it. I am not old enough to vote, but I am keeping close tabs on politics.

 

To a certain degree, that's how it's suppose to work. Not the political infighting, but the check on Presidential power. The Executive Branch isn't supposed to be able to get everything it wants done. That said, it was only two short years ago that Obama had the entire Legislative branch on his political side (also a good portion of the Fourth Estate), so if the President had trouble getting things done, it wasn't the fault of the opposing party.

[Stripey]

They work for us and get voted in by us. Writing in a candidate is one way of saying that none of the presented candidates are qualified to hold office. Not voting at all is saying you don't care.

Exactly my views.

Politicians are employed by the people, so the people should choose someone that will represent them well. Writing in a candidate says you don't like the people running. Not voting means you're apathetic.

[hazeh]

I am most definitely voting for Obama now that I'm old enough to vote. He's the only one who seems to be a decent being and actually likes to engage with regular citizens. He's funny, charming, gentle, and smart. I share a lot of the same values with him and I think he's the only one out of all of them that knows how to treat the American people as a single group instead of a divided nation.

 

That being said, I wish he wasn't such a pacifist. I realize he was really trying to compromise and make most of everyone happy when dealing with a republican congress, but he also didn't get much done when he had the democrats in there. I hope during (because I'm pretty darn sure he's going to get reelected) his second term he gets more things done. It does seem that in the recent years he's been moving things a little faster though, which is nice.

[7Deadly$ins]

That's a pretty lousy way to look at one of the responsibilities of being We the People. They work for us and get voted in by us. Writing in a candidate is one way of saying that none of the presented candidates are qualified to hold office. Not voting at all is saying you don't care.

 

You do know that some people actually do get elected as write-in candidates, yes? Not to President, but in the last Senate elections, a write-in candidate won.

 

It's pretty well carved in stone that Ron Paul won't be on the ballot, but I might vote for him anyway. Since I'm not registered Republican in California, I won't have a chance to vote in the primaries, and there's no way I'll vote for Obama or Santorum, and really unlikely I'd vote for Romney. That's not throwing away my vote, that's feeling neither presented candidate is qualified for the job.

 

Honestly, te government has been making me upset recently. I have found that, when it comes to Persidental election, there has been a gridlock. Each term, the President really doesn't get much passed because the other party tends to refuse to agree to it. I am not old enough to vote, but I am keeping close tabs on politics.

 

To a certain degree, that's how it's suppose to work. Not the political infighting, but the check on Presidential power. The Executive Branch isn't supposed to be able to get everything it wants done. That said, it was only two short years ago that Obama had the entire Legislative branch on his political side (also a good portion of the Fourth Estate), so if the President had trouble getting things done, it wasn't the fault of the opposing party.

Writing in celebrities or cartoon characters is not showing me that you care about politics.

 

It's a valid point that in lower elections some write-in candidates win, but for president it's pretty useless.

[Princess Artemis]

Writing in celebrities or cartoon characters is not showing me that you care about politics.

 

It's a valid point that in lower elections some write-in candidates win, but for president it's pretty useless.

I know someone suggested Mickey Mouse, but I said Ron Paul as a possibility. He is neither a celebrity nor a cartoon character--he's a current Republican nominee. Why would that not show that I cared about politics?

[KageSora]

That being said, I wish he wasn't such a pacifist. I realize he was really trying to compromise and make most of everyone happy when dealing with a republican congress, but he also didn't get much done when he had the democrats in there. I hope during (because I'm pretty darn sure he's going to get reelected) his second term he gets more things done. It does seem that in the recent years he's been moving things a little faster though, which is nice.

I've known some people who think that if he gets in, he has more room to try to do what he wants, because he can't get reelected for a third term so there's no pressure to try and get reelected.

 

 

 

Personally, I'm still not sure who I'd vote for. At this point, I'm just trying to figure out who I think would cause the least amount of damage. (Which definitely means I'm not voting Santorum!)

 

 

Not American, so I don't have many things to contribute but to say:

 

Please guys. PLEASE choose carefully. Who becomes the POTUS affects the rest of the world, even the domestic policies of a country. Your country's policies set a trail for foreign policymakers to follow. Your country's policies set a stage for international policies to act out upon.

 

That's all I can say to you.

Hey, just because you're not in America doesn't mean you don't have plenty you can say on the matter--like you said, who we elect will have an effect on the entire world.

 

If you COULD vote, do you know who you would, based on their policies--especially their international policies?

[philpot123]

I am most definitely voting for Obama now that I'm old enough to vote. He's the only one who seems to be a decent being and actually likes to engage with regular citizens. He's funny, charming, gentle, and smart. I share a lot of the same values with him and I think he's the only one out of all of them that knows how to treat the American people as a single group instead of a divided nation.

 

That being said, I wish he wasn't such a pacifist. I realize he was really trying to compromise and make most of everyone happy when dealing with a republican congress, but he also didn't get much done when he had the democrats in there. I hope during (because I'm pretty darn sure he's going to get reelected) his second term he gets more things done. It does seem that in the recent years he's been moving things a little faster though, which is nice.

As far as engaging with regular citizens, Ron Paul is pretty far up there. He IS pretty much a regular citizen. His proposed salary (should he be elected) is equal to the median household income. And he's actually had real world experience in medicine, military, etc. As far as viewing Americans as a single group... well, we aren't. There are different people, and that's a fact of life. Trying to make everyone equal as far as economic standing or social power isn't practical and simply doesn't work. Libertarianism is a pretty dang good practical equalizer though, or at least the Ron Paul brand of libertarianism. True libertarianism is closest to anarchy, but if we simply took a Paul-esque approach and actually recognized that, HEY, the 10th amendment EXISTS, let's follow it, things could change.

 

That said, I'm a backwoods, gun toting, ultra-conservative. So very few people here agree with me