American Politics

[philpot123]

For the lulz.

Always a good enough reason.

[Kestra15]

Always a good enough reason.

Indeed.

 

Although I feel sorry for my sisters-in-arms should he actually do that, part of me likes the idea that the President takes time out of his day to come surf the Dragoncave Forums.

[skauble]

It's funny to me how people always go to fox as the representation for bias, when MSNBC is just as heavily biased and screws up their reports JUST as much, but they're just biased the other way any news network that tries to claim it is "fair" is simply lying. If you find a news source that labels themselves according to what slant they will be writing from, THEN they have a bit more respect in my eyes, even if I don't agree with their position. The mainstream media in America is in a pretty sorry state at the moment...

 

I'm glad you have reliable news sources over there

Actually, I watch MSNBC and have commented on its liberal bias before. It's just way too hard to miss. I like them because they tend to cover some of the things I'm more interested in, but I also double check their stories and get news from other sources too (and not just the Daily Show~ )

 

But in regard to someone admitting their liberal bias up front, Chris Hayes does that and I find a lot of his stuff to be very thought provoking. Even when he talks about the weird way the conservatives have largely dsavowed the polls this election (even their own), he admitted that he did some of that in the '04 election. Not many other people on that side of things were willing to soften the blow of the right's dcision to fix polling by just changing some of the numbers. lol

 

As for the drinking game, I'm more interested to see if Mitt goes with Carter references more than Reagan. After all, dude's no Reagan, so inviting the comparison might do more harm than good in that setting. I should fill a bowl with the amount of M&Ms that I are my guess for the outcome of the drinking game, eat one for each mention and see how close I come. lol

 

In other news: What the heck was up with the so called ground breaking, earth shattering, game changing video that Fox news and others played up all yesterday? Was that just about firing up their base? Because, wow, talk about a whole bunch of nothing.

 

Frankly, I'm very disturbed by the trend of white people appropriating the issue of racism and using it to try to shut down necessary discussions of continuing issues that people of color face. It's not racism or race-baitng, or anything else when minorities speak of various troubles they've faced, past and present. And if we in the white community feel left out, too bad. The downside of having the power in a society is that you don't get to complain about not having the power.

[brairtrainer]

 

Frankly, I'm very disturbed by the trend of white people appropriating the issue of racism and using it to try to shut down necessary discussions of continuing issues that people of color face. It's not racism or race-baitng, or anything else when minorities speak of various troubles they've faced, past and present. And if we in the white community feel left out, too bad. The downside of having the power in a society is that you don't get to complain about not having the power.

Going to try to put this as delicatley as possible, but before I do I will say a few things. 1) People of color do have a lot of road blocks to getting further ahead than white people 2) there is still hate crime for ethnicity and color and it is wrong 3) There need to be things to level the playing feild.

 

 

Now those things being said...

 

 

White people appropriating the issue of racism is because there is some "reverse racism" happening. Example a black person can call another person (censoring for safety) but anyone else who says it is bad and racist etc.

Now I understand that that is a reclaimation of the word but I'm using it as one example.

 

Another is the fact of pride ie. you should feel proud of your ethnicity and show it, but if your white thats a big no-no you can feel no pride for your race because of stuff that happened a long time ago.

 

Yes we still should move toward equality for everyone, but I don't believe equality for one should come at the expense of equilty for another. Men shouldn't lose opprotunities because women need more, but women need doors open so they can compete for the opprotunities. Race needs to be put on an equal footing (ie don't bring someone into college just because he's black, don't even make it an option to put it on college aplications), don't bar someone from doing something just because they are homosexual.

 

I mean really I'm for opening up doors, but once the doors are opened and secured we need to look and see if there is a group that is now being hindered by this (my boyfriend applied for several scholarships got two, and one was from an alumnae that seeing sevral scholorships set up for people of different races, women, and immigrants, found that his school limited the white male's chance of paying for school. It was a merit scholarship and with it my boyfriend was able to take advantage of going to school and not be locked out of the major he wanted.)

 

Also just to bring this into prospective. We have a Miss America and Miss Black America pagents. Women of all ethnicities compete in Miss America, why do we need a seperate one for black women? I understand when it was first started we needed it because the Miss America pagent only let in white women but what about now? (would actually like a view from someone who follows both of these...I've never followed them myself but find it quite odd)

[skauble]

White people appropriating the issue of racism is because there is some "reverse racism" happening. Example a black person can call another person (censoring for safety) but anyone else who says it is bad and racist etc.

Now I understand that that is a reclaimation of the word but I'm using it as one example.

 

Another is the fact of pride ie. you should feel proud of your ethnicity and show it, but if your white thats a big no-no you can feel no pride for your race because of stuff that happened a long time ago.

 

Yes we still should move toward equality for everyone, but I don't believe equality for one should come at the expense of equilty for another. Men shouldn't lose opprotunities because women need more, but women need doors open so they can compete for the opprotunities. Race needs to be put on an equal footing (ie don't bring someone into college just because he's black, don't even make it an option to put it on college aplications), don't bar someone from doing something just because they are homosexual.

 

I mean really I'm for opening up doors, but once the doors are opened and secured we need to look and see if there is a group that is now being hindered by this (my boyfriend applied for several scholarships got two, and one was from an alumnae that seeing sevral scholorships set up for people of different races, women, and immigrants, found that his school limited the white male's chance of paying for school. It was a merit scholarship and with it my boyfriend was able to take advantage of going to school and not be locked out of the major he wanted.)

 

Also just to bring this into prospective. We have a Miss America and Miss Black America pagents. Women of all ethnicities compete in Miss America, why do we need a seperate one for black women? I understand when it was first started we needed it because the Miss America pagent only let in white women but what about now? (would actually like a view from someone who follows both of these...I've never followed them myself but find it quite odd)

This video -

- is absolutely the best, short and sweet answer on why it's not a double standard that black people can use that word and other people can't. I would encourage everyone to give it a watch.

 

The problem with the whole idea of reverse racism is that it holds claims of racism against whites to be the same thing as racism against people of color. And it's not. At all.

 

The fact is, that if people don't like you just because of your race, that sucks and maybe they're tools for judging people that way. However, white people tend to completely screen out the power dynamic from the equation when they talk about this subject.

 

White people hold the vast majority of positions of power in this country. They're most likely to be someones boss, their landlord, their government representative, etc. Likewise, institutions - both social and government - have been built, over hundreds of years, to preference white people.

 

So when there's racism against people of color, it's not just someone judging them unfairly or disliking them for no good reason, it's something that carries a great deal of power behind it. The power to make a job harder to get, place a bank loan out of reach, make it more difficult to get a place to live. And even if one white person doesn't hold a particular type of power, the continued propping up of systemic racism enables those who do have that power.

 

Which is just a small touching of a huge subject, but the whole racism/reverse racism, those things are not the same. Especially when we consider that white people disliked black people for absolutely zero reason, whereas black people actually have hundreds of years of oppression (and continuing obstacles) that is behind a lot of the dislike and distrust you often see.

 

As for the Miss Black America thing, it reminds me of when a guy once asked why there were women's studies classes at a college but no men's studies. To which it was pointed out that pretty much every class except women's studies was a men's studies class by default.

 

People in a position of power rarely understand the vast scope of how society is designed to favor them - largely because they were the primary designers of the systems and institutions of their society. It's so ingrained that it goes unnoticed by us and then we think most of the problem is fixed when the overt racism begins to fade.

 

The fact is that the white standard of beauty is alive and well in this country. It's not that there aren't women of color that we consider beautiful, it's just that there's a default beauty image. An image where if you told people to close their eyes and invent a beautiful woman in their mind she would most likely be white. And they've done studies that show that there's often that bias even in people of color because it's just so prevalent.

 

So, yeah, I can see why people might want a Miss Black America pageant, because simply being included in something doesn't mean that it's all equal.

Edited October 3, 2012 by skauble

[brairtrainer]

This video -

- is absolutely the best, short and sweet answer on why it's not a double standard that black people can use that word and other people can't. I would encourage everyone to give it a watch.

 

The problem with the whole idea of reverse racism is that it holds claims of racism against whites to be the same thing as racism against people of color. And it's not. At all.

 

The fact is, that if people don't like you just because of your race, that sucks and maybe they're tools for judging people that way. However, white people tend to completely screen out the power dynamic from the equation when they talk about this subject.

 

White people hold the vast majority of positions of power in this country. They're most likely to be someones boss, their landlord, their government representative, etc. Likewise, institutions - both social and government - have been built, over hundreds of years, to preference white people.

 

So when there's racism against people of color, it's not just someone judging them unfairly or disliking them for no good reason, it's something that carries a great deal of power behind it. The power to make a job harder to get, place a bank loan out of reach, make it more difficult to get a place to live. And even if one white person doesn't hold a particular type of power, the continued propping up of systemic racism enables those who do have that power.

 

Which is just a small touching of a huge subject, but the whole racism/reverse racism, those things are not the same. Especially when we consider that white people disliked black people for absolutely zero reason, whereas black people actually have hundreds of years of oppression (and continuing obstacles) that is behind a lot of the dislike and distrust you often see.

 

As for the Miss Black America thing, it reminds me of when a guy once asked why there were women's studies classes at a college but no men's studies. To which it was pointed out that pretty much every class except women's studies was a men's studies class by default.

 

People in a position of power rarely understand the vast scope of how society is designed to favor them - largely because they were the primary designers of the systems and institutions of their society. It's so ingrained that it goes unnoticed by us and then we think most of the problem is fixed when the overt racism begins to fade.

 

The fact is that the white standard of beauty is alive and well in this country. It's not that there aren't women of color that we consider beautiful, it's just that there's a default beauty image. An image where if you told people to close their eyes and invent a beautiful woman in their mind she would most likely be white. And they've done studies that show that there's often that bias even in people of color because it's just so prevalent.

 

So, yeah, I can see why people might want a Miss Black America pageant, because simply being included in something doesn't mean that it's all equal.

Thank you Skauble that helped clear up some things.

 

Its a bit of a sore subject for me because I was subject to it during a class last semester (reverse racisim) because I pointed out the thing you said about beauty only with something else and it lead the entire class to attack me for two days(outside of class) before the prof did anything when I was only talking about a preconcived notion when I was reading a story being debunked.

 

So it helps to realize its the same thing, although doesn't make me feel any better that if the same thing had happened to someone who wasn't white it would have been better understood while I suddnly have the tag 'racist' follow me around campus for most of the rest of the semester

[demonicvampiregirl]

It does not matter what links I put up, or what I say ... most of you, not all, do not agree with me, and it does not bother me.

 

Maybe it is because I watch a lot of TV concerning the news, news paper and radio on many things such as "socialism" and mexican drug barons and terrorists and more. My sister is also a history major and we talk all the time.

 

Just because someone says something, they also do not have to put a link up about it either.

 

Someone posted to me that "Sarcasm or not that is a very hypocritical thing to say". But it seems it is ok for some of you to be sarcastic!!!!

That someone was me and it's true.

 

You go on and on about how people don't need abortions, about how Obama is a "socialist", how the whole middle east need to be bombed and wiped out due to terrorists (which is a terrorist act itself!), all drug cartels treated the same way, and then say any form of healthcare or welfare is bad.

 

Then you make a JOKE about healthcare and welfare doing it because Obama may get re-elected?

 

That is hypocritical. It's also hypocritical to say that everyone always abuses those systems. Where is the proof that every single person who has been on that has abused it? Did you not see the link I posted at all about MILLIONAIRES getting unemployment benefits? That is perfectly fine but anyone who is poor and on Welfare always abuses it?

[Fuzzbucket]

That someone was me and it's true.

 

You go on and on about how people don't need abortions, about how Obama is a "socialist", how the whole middle east need to be bombed and wiped out due to terrorists (which is a terrorist act itself!), all drug cartels treated the same way, and then say any form of healthcare or welfare is bad.

 

Then you make a JOKE about healthcare and welfare doing it because Obama may get re-elected?

 

That is hypocritical. It's also hypocritical to say that everyone always abuses those systems. Where is the proof that every single person who has been on that has abused it? Did you not see the link I posted at all about MILLIONAIRES getting unemployment benefits? That is perfectly fine but anyone who is poor and on Welfare always abuses it?

Yes - that millionaires thing was appalling. I know they avoid paying their FAIR share of taxes (Buffet pointed out that he pays proportionately less of his income than his lowest grade secretary !) - but that they claim welfare and get away with it is nothing short of criminal

 

And it was good of you to post the link - it's not that interesting when people post unsubstantiated statements which we are supposed to swallow as facts (or use issue-centred websites like Right to Life and so on - that are biased; even if you agree with them they are not FACTUALLY correct a lot of the time, and NEVER put the other side of the picture.)

 

I mean - I know a website that says you can't get pregnant if you have sex standing up. Not to mention that well known one that says you cannot get pregnant from rape... If I post that kind of thing as a fact, I would NOT expect you to believe it just because I said it, and I would at least accept it if someone here showed me - with FACTS and links to RELIABLE unbiased websites - that it wasn't true.

[philpot123]

"Mr. President, please respond directly to the 'trickle down effect'"

 

"Let me talk about education"

 

 

And, to quote The Onion News Network, "Debate introductions make Governor Romney appear like a legitimate candidate for several seconds."

 

 

This debate is off to a great start.

[Windnose]

This year will be my first time voting for president and I really want to make an educated vote; but politics really isn't my "thing." DX

I was trying to watch the presidential debate but the DVR started to record something else on my tv. Not that it matters; that debate was going in circles anyways. >.<

 

I was hoping that someone here could either give me unbiased and easy to understand facts about what each candidate supports or help me find links to unbiased, easy to understand facts.

 

ETA: Feel free to PM me about this.

Edited October 4, 2012 by Windnose

[philpot123]

This year will be my first time voting for president and I really want to make an educated vote; but politics really isn't my "thing." DX

I was trying to watch the presidential debate but the DVR started to record something else on my tv. Not that it matters; that debate was going in circles anyways. >.<

 

I was hoping that someone here could either give me unbiased and easy to understand facts about what each candidate supports or help me find links to unbiased, easy to understand facts.

America sucks, write in Ron Paul.

 

 

/Unhelpful Libertarian.

 

 

But in all seriousness, are you conservative or liberal leaning?

[Windnose]

America sucks, write in Ron Paul.

 

 

/Unhelpful Libertarian.

 

 

But in all seriousness, are you conservative or liberal leaning?

I think I am more liberal. >.< I'm not 100% sure what is what in politics anymore.

[demonicvampiregirl]

"Mr. President, please respond directly to the 'trickle down effect'"

 

"Let me talk about education"

 

 

And, to quote The Onion News Network, "Debate introductions make Governor Romney appear like a legitimate candidate for several seconds."

 

 

This debate is off to a great start.

I am not watching the debate so what happened there? I've kinda had enough political crap for now and the only thing I can tolerate is this thread.

[philpot123]

I am not watching the debate so what happened there? I've kinda had enough political crap for now and the only thing I can tolerate is this thread.

Obama completely dodged an economics question by talking about the need for education. An interesting topic, but not the topic.

 

 

 

As far as the intro goes, Romney sounded competent through his scripted intro. It's bound to go downhill after that though.

 

 

I think I am more liberal. >.< I'm not 100% sure what is what in politics anymore.

 

Honestly, wikipedia articles might help. Just search liberal and conservative. Typical social liberal supports open access to abortion, homosexual marriage rights, sometimes anti-gun rights but not always, etc. Economic liberal supports increased welfare, increased government regulation in the private sector to improve the economy, oppose tax cuts on the rich, sometimes advocate raising taxes on the rich... I mean, this is really general stuff. It's not always across the board for all liberals or all conservatives. There's a few online tests to help you determine that sort of thing, another member might be able to point you that way.

Edited October 4, 2012 by philpot123

[demonicvampiregirl]

Obama completely dodged an economics question by talking about the need for education. An interesting topic, but not the topic.

 

 

 

As far as the intro goes, Romney sounded competent through his scripted intro. It's bound to go downhill after that though.

Oh okay. Thank you!

[Windnose]

Honestly, wikipedia articles might help. Just search liberal and conservative. Typical social liberal supports open access to abortion, homosexual marriage rights, sometimes anti-gun rights but not always, etc. Economic liberal supports increased welfare, increased government regulation in the private sector to improve the economy, oppose tax cuts on the rich, sometimes advocate raising taxes on the rich... I mean, this is really general stuff. It's not always across the board for all liberals or all conservatives. There's a few online tests to help you determine that sort of thing, another member might be able to point you that way.

Then I was right, I do lean more towards liberal.

 

I have taken some of those online quizzes before for a class in high school; I just don't really remember the results. >.< I might try to find them again to retake them.

[philpot123]

ROMNEY JUST COMPARED HIMSELF TO REAGAN. Who's taking shots?

 

 

 

ETA: Whatever your stance is on the presidential candidates, can we all agree that Paul Ryan is going to make Biden look like a 3rd grader in the VP debates...?

Edited October 4, 2012 by philpot123

[Alpha1]

"Mr. President, please respond directly to the 'trickle down effect'"

 

"Let me talk about education"

 

Those aren't direct quotes, and Obama was shotgunning by bringing up more than just education in his answer.

 

"MR. LEHRER: Mr. President, please respond directly to what the governor just said about trickle-down — his trickle-down approach. He's — as he said yours is.

 

PRESIDENT OBAMA: Well, let me talk specifically about what I think we need to do. First, we've got to improve our education system. [...]"

 

It looks to me that Obama is responding in part to Romney's claim that his approach is "trickle-down government". He could have articulated his point better, but I see what he was trying to get across. I've read a study recently that suggested about a third of unemployment could be attributed to having a flawed transition system into the workforce. Germany, for example, has better connections with employers. In the U.S., we have many people aimlessly going to college without any idea of what they'll do. It's very inefficient. Obama wanted to put money into the system to get more people into programs that have openings once they graduate.

[philpot123]

Those aren't direct quotes, and Obama was shotgunning by bringing up more than just education in his answer.

 

"MR. LEHRER: Mr. President, please respond directly to what the governor just said about trickle-down — his trickle-down approach. He's — as he said yours is.

 

PRESIDENT OBAMA: Well, let me talk specifically about what I think we need to do. First, we've got to improve our education system. [...]"

 

It looks to me that Obama is responding in part to Romney's claim that his approach is "trickle-down government". He could have articulated his point better, but I see what he was trying to get across. I've read a study recently that suggested about a third of unemployment could be attributed to having a flawed transition system into the workforce. Germany, for example, has better connections with employers. In the U.S., we have many people aimlessly going to college without any idea of what they'll do. It's very inefficient. Obama wanted to put money into the system to get more people into programs that have openings once they graduate.

Sorry, yeah, I should have made that clear. I'm very cynical and sarcastic about all things political at this point.

 

 

I completely agree about education reform though. In my opinion, a large part of the problem is the high school education BEFORE college education, but also a lack of practical application and career guidance while in college. The colleges that I've seen that have good apprenticeship/work study programs seem to do better in the post-graduation employment department... Of course those cost more than most state schools.

 

Anyways, I agree about education being a large part of the problem. I don't know that I agree with the idea that federal government intervention will magically solve the issue.

[Slaskia]

As for the who's who and what they stand for, I found this site decent:

 

http://2012.presidential-candidates.org/

 

Myself, I'm liberal leaning, but I don't like either of the 'main' candidates. I do like Gary Johnson, the independant candidate...but due to the current election laws that prevent him from openly campaigning, he hasn't got a chance....

[Windnose]

As for the who's who and what they stand for, I found this site decent:

 

http://2012.presidential-candidates.org/

 

Myself, I'm liberal leaning, but I don't like either of the 'main' candidates. I do like Gary Johnson, the independant candidate...but due to the current election laws that prevent him from openly campaigning, he hasn't got a chance....

Thank you for that link. :3

 

[skauble]

This year will be my first time voting for president and I really want to make an educated vote; but politics really isn't my "thing." DX

I was trying to watch the presidential debate but the DVR started to record something else on my tv. Not that it matters; that debate was going in circles anyways. >.<

 

I was hoping that someone here could either give me unbiased and easy to understand facts about what each candidate supports or help me find links to unbiased, easy to understand facts.

 

ETA: Feel free to PM me about this.

Yay for you for voting! It can sometimes seem hopeless in today's political environment, but the system doesn't work largely because we all kind of wandered off. So using your voice is the first step to us all regaining control.

 

IMO, after you look at some unbiased stuff I think that a great way to learn more about the parties is to go ahead and read some biased things.

 

I think that's helpful because people who feel truly passionate about their beliefs can often speak of them in a way that gives them context and meaning. It's not just a recitation of facts, but how they feel it applies to life or improves the world. You just have to remember to take it with a grain of salt.

 

In fact, some great links to help you check out the truth behind the claims:

 

FactCheck.org

PolitiFact.com

 

And do check out Gary Johnson. Not a candidate for me, but third parties deserve more attention and the Libertarians are a very solid one.

 

I completely agree about education reform though. In my opinion, a large part of the problem is the high school education BEFORE college education, but also a lack of practical application and career guidance while in college. The colleges that I've seen that have good apprenticeship/work study programs seem to do better in the post-graduation employment department... Of course those cost more than most state schools.

I think that more junior colleges would help. They're better equipped to deal with things like vocational training and they make it easier for later life students, many of whom are working, to pursue educational goals.

 

ROMNEY JUST COMPARED HIMSELF TO REAGAN. Who's taking shots?

One questions if Romney might have had some shots if he thinks he's another Reagan.

 

ETA: Whatever your stance is on the presidential candidates, can we all agree that Paul Ryan is going to make Biden look like a 3rd grader in the VP debates...?

Party affiliation aside, I really think Ryan really needs to be careful in this debate. Especially because, given Biden's gaffs, there will be the temptation to be overconfident.

 

One, I think that Biden can be far more aggressive that the presidential candates could be without it causing any political damage.

 

Two, Ryan is the Republican's numbers guy, but his nunbers often add up in fairly extreme and unpopular ways, and you can believe that Biden's going to point that out, over and over. Especially Medicare and Social Security.

 

Three, Ryan's a member of Congress. They're slightly less popular than food poisoning these days. So Ryan's going to have to throw things at Biden that can't boomerang back to him, and that's going to be tremendously difficult.

 

On the other hand, Biden could spend the debate giving news channels enough foot shooting sound bites to last them well into next year.

 

As far as the intro goes, Romney sounded competent through his scripted intro. It's bound to go downhill after that though.

I haven't watched it yet (I DVR'ed it) because I like to read the transcripts first, but I hear that Romney was considered the winner...although the generally thinking was that if he didn't offend, oh, say, 47% of the country then he'd win simply by being elevated to a more presidential level. lol

 

/Unhelpful Libertarian.

In the spirit of bridge building, I refrained from making any jokes there. lol

[Fuzzbucket]

I had no idea that independent candidates couldn't campaign in the US. That is truly appalling. The rest of all this kind of pales by comparison. That is NOT democracy. In a real democracy they'd all have a fair chance - and effectively silencing all but two is not fair at all.

 

Where does this come from - can someone explain how such insanity came to be ?

[skauble]

I had no idea that independent candidates couldn't campaign in the US. That is truly appalling. The rest of all this kind of pales by comparison. That is NOT democracy. In a real democracy they'd all have a fair chance - and effectively silencing all but two is not fair at all.

 

Where does this come from - can someone explain how such insanity came to be ?

I'm not sure exactly what they meant, but third party candidates can campaign as much as they want.

 

However, the system is stacked completely against them. I'm not up on all the finance matters for campaigning, but there's a certain amount of federal funds that are available to candidates, but only if they got 5% (I believe) of the vote in the past election or, I think, if they want to take a chance and borrow against getting 5% in the current election.

 

It can be difficult for them to get on the ballot in all states, partially because each state has it's own requirements, and they often involve gathering signatures or getting a certain percentage of the last major vote.

 

They're also almost always shut out of the presidential debates, which makes it that much harder to make themselves know to the people.

 

Also, I honestly don't know how TV advertising rates break down. There's a certain price that candidates can get if they use certain types of campaign funds, but I don't know exactly how that works.

 

And that's just what I could think of off the top of my head.

 

So they're generally screwed from the beginning because the two other parties have the vast majority of power and resources and the government pretty much props that up. But they are able to go out and campaign and run commercials and present their ideas. They just have to do it without a lot of the breaks the other parties get.

[philpot123]

In the spirit of bridge building, I refrained from making any jokes there. lol

Oh, make whatever jokes you want, I'm an easygoing guy