American Politics

[Slaskia]

In regards to the third parties:

 

"Third party candidates also are at a disadvantage because of federal campaign finance laws, rules that dictate who can enter presidential debates, and a lack of media attention."

and

 

"Campaign finance rules say that a political party can only get government funding to run a race if it received a certain percentage of votes from the previous election. Often this leaves third party candidates to fund their own campaigns. With less media coverage, the candidates are left to find other means of exposure to raise the millions of dollars it takes to run a successful campaign."

 

Both quotes form the "Obstacles Third Parties Face" section toward the bottom That whole section is relevant, in fact. So I was only slightly wrong about third parties not being able to 'openly' campaign. With all the barriers...it simply 'looks' like they are not....

 

 

[Wantdew]

About the debate last night.

 

Romney seemed more confident and Obama was very nervous acting, just repeating statements and attacking Romney about the same things.

 

I'm not the best with politics, but I felt like Romney did win that debate.

 

Oh and the 3rd debate is on my birthday!

[skauble]

About the debate last night.

 

Romney seemed more confident and Obama was very nervous acting, just repeating statements and attacking Romney about the same things.

 

I'm not the best with politics, but I felt like Romney did win that debate.

 

Oh and the 3rd debate is on my birthday! 

Romney totally won the debate. Unfortunately that victory came with a lot of misrepresenting the facts concerning his proposed policies.

 

A lot of people have been saying, for quite some time now, that the analysis of Romney's plans don't add up. He keeps insisting that he has it all worked out, so it could, theoretically, work but if he refuses to share the details then he can't reap the rewards of claiming he's solved the problems..

 

What really concerns me is the claim that his health care plan would cover people with pre-existing conditions. It won't cover people with pre-existing conditions, but rather make sure that people with preexisting conditions who maintain continuous coverage will keep being covered.

 

That's a huge difference and it's one of the main things that I don't think the "free market" argument addresses. In what possible way is insuring someone with a pre-existing condition - especially one that's very expensive to treat - cost effective? What's in it for the insurance companies? A large part of insurance is the gamble that you'll pay more in then you'll end up needing. Taking on someone that they know is going to be constantly needing care is a total losing proposition for them, which is why they didn't used to do it and why they often used to use any excuse possible to kick people of their plans if the became gravely ill.

 

I just don't see how that problem is going to fix itself when it never did before.

 

That aside, Romney did what he needed to do in the debate by giving a performance that allowed people to see him in a presidential light.

 

And happy soon to be birthday!

[Vhale]

I was hoping Gary Johnson would win his lawsuit and get in. I don't know if there is still a chance he might? Imo, I think one of the biggest obstacles we face globally, is large multi-national corporations that manipulate countries for their own ends. Same as we recognized way back when that monopolies were bad, we're getting monopolies all over again. We don't really encourage competition the way things are.

 

I saw that point on the health care. I also think it's something that's going to become more crucial because, 30 years ago, people kept the same job their whole lives. Now, we constantly flip jobs. And when we flip jobs, we flip health care. Of course, anything that happened between switching health care is now a pre-existing condition. >.<

[brairtrainer]

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 ?

power struggle Fuzz, by keeping the other parties out the two main parties have less people to fight with for majority

[~Kat~]

How many of you watched the debate last night?

 

Al Gore, said it was the altitude because Obama did so bad,

 

You know, Obama has had almost 4 years, but yet the middle class has still been hurting.

 

Obama is also spending money we do not have.

 

With Obomacare, you will not have the best dr's care either. There was a notice in my own dr's office last year about this.

 

There are many more points, but I do not remember them all as I was baby sitting my grandchildren

 

These are my feelings, but this was also said on Hannity on Fox as well. NO, I do not have links for you to see,

 

Yes, I think both last night, Obama and Romney, were a little wrong on facts.

 

Obama did not have his self together. I do believe he needs a teleprompter.

 

One thing I am grateful for is, Romney will back our MILITARY to keep them strong to keep America SAFE and put the money behind them, and this is what it takes so we do not get over taken.

 

I honestly feel that Obama is a weak man.

 

Who knows, there are 2 more debates.

 

Can't wait to see the vice presidents go at it.

 

Obama is not a happy camper right now.

[demonicvampiregirl]

How many of you watched the debate last night?

 

Al Gore, said it was the altitude because Obama did so bad, 

 

You know, Obama has had almost 4 years, but yet the middle class has still been hurting.

 

Obama is also spending money we do not have.

 

With Obomacare, you will not have the best dr's care either. There was a notice in my own dr's office last year about this.

 

There are many more points, but I do not remember them all as I was baby sitting my grandchildren

 

These are my feelings, but this was also said on Hannity on Fox as well. NO, I do not have links for you to see, 

 

Yes, I think both last night, Obama and Romney, were a little wrong on facts.

 

Obama did not have his self together. I do believe he needs a teleprompter.

 

One thing I am grateful for is, Romney will back our MILITARY to keep them strong to keep America SAFE and put the money behind them, and this is what it takes so we do not get over taken.

 

I honestly feel that Obama is a weak man.

 

Who knows, there are 2 more debates.

 

Can't wait to see the vice presidents go at it.

 

Obama is not a happy camper right now.

The only reason we even need a strong military right now is because we have ticked off the rest of the world. I really wish we didn't have to have a military at all.

 

The middle class is still hurting because of what all Bush has done and what Romney will take us right back into. He believes in the trickle down economy which is the exact same thing Bush did to us. There is no way he can be a better candidate if he is going to take us back to the same place we started from.

 

I still don't see how people can still blame Obama for what Bush had done to us. Is he just supposed to wave a magic wand and all the troubles vanish?

 

He needs a second term to continue to fix things and if Romney gets in we'll be back to square one.

Edited October 5, 2012 by demonicvampiregirl

[KageSora]

Yeah, with Romney we'll need a strong military because he will offend the rest of the world and piss them the hell off.

 

What part of "if we play nice people won't be as likely to hate us and thus won't be as likely to attack us" do people not understand? It's a very, very simple concept.

 

Who are you more likely to have problems with--the school bully, or the quiet kid who leaves people alone and is respectful when he has to talk to them?

 

 

Do you want America to (continue to) be the bully? So we need a military to protect us?

 

Instead, let's not piss the world off, and then they won't have reason to attack us.

 

 

You cannot possibly believe that people only ever attack us for no reason/because they're crazy. If you do, I feel very, very sorry for you. People attack us because they have reasons to hate and/or fear us. We're not a country of saints who have done nothing but good and wonderful things for the world, y'know.

[~Kat~]

The only reason we even need a strong military right now is because we have ticked off the rest of the world. I really wish we didn't have to have a military at all.

 

The middle class is still hurting because of what all Bush has done and what Romney will take us right back into. He believes in the trickle down economy which is the exact same thing Bush did to us. There is no way he can be a better candidate if he is going to take us back to the same place we started from.

 

I still don't see how people can still blame Obama for what Bush had done to us. Is he just supposed to wave a magic wand and all the troubles vanish?

 

He needs a second term to continue to fix things and if Romney gets in we'll be back to square one.

Did you watch the debate?

 

We have always had a strong Military. Look at the past wars please. With crazy Terrorists, and people like this, you have to have a strong military to protect your country, How do you think, what we have now, was aquired? Go back when the USA was fought for. Then go to WW1 and WW2. My father fought for what we have in the USA now in WW2.

 

Obama has not even made a dent in the middle class.

 

4 more years of Obama, and we will be a socialist country, come on. Lets spread the wealth around is what Obama wants. The USA is a democracy country, not socialist. This is the path Obama wants to go, and it SOCIALIST.

 

Obama can not even explain his failed policies in the last 4 years!!!

 

The Liberal Media has been protecting him. But they can not right now.

 

Also, with Obamacare Healh Plan, we are going to be forced to purchase. This is a complete government take over period. I think congress is exempted, please.

[brairtrainer]

Did you watch the debate?

 

We have always had a strong Military. Look at the past wars please. With crazy Terrorists, and people like this, you have to have a strong military to protect your country, How do you think, what we have now, was aquired? Go back when the USA was fought for. Then go to WW1 and WW2. My father fought for what we have in the USA now in WW2.

 

Obama has not even made a dent in the middle class.

 

4 more years of Obama, and we will be a socialist country, come on. Lets spread the wealth around is what Obama wants. The USA is a democracy country, not socialist. This is the path Obama wants to go, and it SOCIALIST.

 

Obama can not even explain his failed policies in the last 4 years!!!

 

The Liberal Media has been protecting him. But they can not right now.

 

Also, with Obamacare Healh Plan, we are going to be forced to purchase. This is a complete government take over period. I think congress is exempted, please.

First ~Kat~ Socailism is an economic system not a government ruling type. IT is possible to have a Socailist or Communistic Democracy in theory.

 

Honestly Romney Scares me , as do many of the other canidates the Republican party is puting forth, both for econmic and social reasons. We don't need to give the rich more taxe breaks we need everyone to contribute without creative accounting(a la Romney's dancing horse e.e).

 

Now I don't care for the way Obama is doing thing and I really would rather not see him in for another term but I'd pick him over Romney any day of the week. Romney scares me almost as much as Santorm does.

 

By the way I know someone mentionted Gary Johonson whats this about a Lawsuit?

 

[~Kat~]

First ~Kat~ Socailism is an economic system not a government ruling type. IT is possible to have a Socailist or Communistic Democracy in theory.

 

Honestly Romney Scares me , as do many of the other canidates the Republican party is puting forth, both for econmic and social reasons. We don't need to give the rich more taxe breaks we need everyone to contribute without creative accounting(a la Romney's dancing horse e.e).

 

Now I don't care for the way Obama is doing thing and I really would rather not see him in for another term but I'd pick him over Romney any day of the week. Romney scares me almost as much as Santorm does.

 

By the way I know someone mentionted Gary Johonson whats this about a Lawsuit?

Obama has got by with a lot of things, and he should have been impeached as far as I am concerned.

 

Romney was not my pick for a Republican President, Newt Gingrich was for me.

 

I have no idea what Gary Johonson lawsuit is about.

 

I did some research.

 

Gary Johnson Sues To Get Into Presidential Debates

 

http://www.usnews.com/news/blogs/Ken-Walsh...dential-debates

[skauble]

Al Gore, said it was the altitude because Obama did so bad, 

Yeah, Gore was really reaching for that excuse. lol

 

You know, Obama has had almost 4 years, but yet the middle class has still been hurting.

I find this accusation continuously surprising. Four years ago this country was in an epic meltdown that was about to tip into the next Great Depression. The fact that we're producing jobs now, that we're talking about trying to begin to pay off some of our debt instead of having to focus on simply stabilizing everything is amazing. Once you figure in the fact that other countries are still hanging on that edge is doubly so. And the fact that Obama got anything done when for the last two year members of Congress have outright admitted that their main focus was to win back the White House as opposed to governing, is kind of incredible.

 

I think that we all wish that the recovery was moving faster than it is (although I think that the jobs bill would have helped), but we were teetering on the edge of a cliff and we didn't fall, and that's meaningful. Could there have been some better choices? Sure. But the scope of the damage was immense. And I know you hate Obama, but the idea that he deserves none of the credit for stopping what most economists agree could have been an absolute catastrophe is kind of ridiculous.

 

Obama is also spending money we do not have.

And the breakdown of Romney's plan (what he lets us see of it) shows he will continue that pattern.

 

With Obomacare, you will not have the best dr's care either. There was a notice in my own dr's office last year about this.

I'm not sure how impartial I feel doctors are about this.

 

These are my feelings, but this was also said on Hannity on Fox as well. NO, I do not have links for you to see, 

Okay, I'm pretty up front that I watch MSNBC but that it has a very clear liberal bias. Please tell me that you see that Fox is the the bias at the other end of the spectrum. Hannity is not an impartial news source.

 

Also, his hype over the Obama video was both ridiculous and offensive, all at the same time.

 

Obama did not have his self together. I do believe he needs a teleprompter.

I do agree with you that Obama really did not do well. He just kid of let the debate roll over him.

 

One thing I am grateful for is, Romney will back our MILITARY to keep them strong to keep America SAFE and put the money behind them, and this is what it takes so we do not get over taken.

I absolutely can't understand how we'll be getting out of the war and yet need to increase military spending. The problem with both wars wasn't that we didn't have an adequate military, it was that we didn't have a competent exit strategy. There's no way at all that we should have been in either place for more than a year, two at max, and our strategy should have been built around that.

 

The one thing Clint Eastwood was right about - although he hilariously aimed it at the wrong person - was that we should have taken a seriously look at the Russian's time in Afghanistan before we went in there.

 

But seriously, to talk about the huge debt and then plan to inflate the military beyond out needs is a terrible plan. And, frankly, if someone's building a military bigger than is needed it's not a leap to think that, eventually, they'll need to justify the expenditure with military action. And the fact that Romney named Russia as our greatest geo-political foe scares me in ways I can't even express.

 

Can't wait to see the vice presidents go at it.

Yeah, the VP debates will probably be the most interesting, simply because there seems like so much more drama that could happen. lol

[~Kat~]

Yeah, with Romney we'll need a strong military because he will offend the rest of the world and piss them the hell off.

 

What part of "if we play nice people won't be as likely to hate us and thus won't be as likely to attack us" do people not understand? It's a very, very simple concept.

 

Who are you more likely to have problems with--the school bully, or the quiet kid who leaves people alone and is respectful when he has to talk to them?

 

 

Do you want America to (continue to) be the bully? So we need a military to protect us?

 

Instead, let's not piss the world off, and then they won't have reason to attack us.

 

 

You cannot possibly believe that people only ever attack us for no reason/because they're crazy. If you do, I feel very, very sorry for you. People attack us because they have reasons to hate and/or fear us. We're not a country of saints who have done nothing but good and wonderful things for the world, y'know.

How can you compare a school bully or the quiet kid who leaves people alone and is respectful when he has to talk to them?

 

Try this with the TERRORISTS, AND ANY OTHERS LIKE THEM!!! and see what happens to you. These terrorists and people like them all live in tribes, and fight amongst themselves. It is kill or be killed amongst themselves. They remind me of CAVE MEN.

 

The USA gets along with Britain, Australia and other countries. These countries have fought along side the USA, and still do, even in this war now in Afghanastan.

 

Look at WW1 and WW2. Look at all we have been to war with, and the British and Australians were with us.

 

[demonicvampiregirl]

Did you watch the debate?

 

We have always had a strong Military. Look at the past wars please. With crazy Terrorists, and people like this, you have to have a strong military to protect your country,  How do you think, what we have now, was aquired? Go back when the USA was fought for. Then go to WW1 and WW2. My father fought for what we have in the USA now in WW2.

 

Obama has not even made a dent in the middle class.

 

4 more years of Obama, and we will be a socialist country, come on. Lets spread the wealth around is what Obama wants. The USA is a democracy country, not socialist. This is the path Obama wants to go, and it SOCIALIST.

 

Obama can not even explain his failed policies in the last 4 years!!!

 

The Liberal Media has been protecting him. But they can not right now.

 

Also, with Obamacare Healh Plan, we are going to be forced to purchase. This is a complete government take over period. I think congress is exempted, please.

No I didn't because the candidate I chose is quite clear.

 

I absolutely refuse to vote for a person who is going to put us BACK where we was.

 

Thing is we didn't have to continuously build on it like we do now. Want to know why? Look at what's happened. We ticked people off they came back at us with force.

 

Can someone explain to me a bit better what Socialism is? I get what it is but would like a better explanation.

 

So you are upset that the government is going to take over peoples healthcare like they should have years ago and give us a chance at getting the care we need?

 

 

The USA gets along with Britain, Australia and other countries. These countries have fought along side the USA, and still do, even in this war now in Afghanastan.

 

Yeah and want to know why? We played nice with them and didn't try to upset them.

 

I find this accusation continuously surprising. Four years ago this country was in an epic meltdown that was about to tip into the next Great Depression. The fact that we're producing jobs now, that we're talking about trying to begin to pay off some of our debt instead of having to focus on simply stabilizing everything is amazing. Once you figure in the fact that other countries are still hanging on that edge is doubly so. And the fact that Obama got anything done when for the last two year members of Congress have outright admitted that their main focus was to win back the White House as opposed to governing, is kind of incredible.

 

I think that we all wish that the recovery was moving faster than it is (although I think that the jobs bill would have helped), but we were teetering on the edge of a cliff and we didn't fall, and that's meaningful. Could there have been some better choices? Sure. But the scope of the damage was immense. And I know you hate Obama, but the idea that he deserves none of the credit for stopping what most economists agree could have been an absolute catastrophe is kind of ridiculous.

 

This. Just this.

 

It amazes me how because Obama didn't snap his fingers and fix it over night people want to say we haven't had any progress.

 

Progress takes time.

Edited October 5, 2012 by demonicvampiregirl

[hazeh]

The eye-rolling smilies are getting a little old and not contributing a very nice attitude, just fyi.

[~Kat~]

The eye-rolling smilies are getting a little old and not contributing a very nice attitude, just fyi.

It always seems if any of you are sarcastic or use the smilies, it is ok.

 

 

[~Kat~]

demonicvampiregirl, Britain and Australia and New Zealand fought along side of the USA in of the wars I was talking about.

 

Do some research.

Edited October 5, 2012 by ~Kat~

[demonicvampiregirl]

demonicvampiregirl, Britain and Australia and New Zealand fought along side of the USA in of the wars I was talking about.

And again how many times have we offended them, done something against them or upset them in any way?

 

That is the reason why they are ALLIES.

[hazeh]

It always seems if any of you are sarcastic or use the smilies, it is ok.

I haven't seen anyone else use the eye-roll smilie in a long while; you're being quite excessive with it and in turn makes your posts seem a bit rude.

 

Generally our sarcasm is supposed to be lighthearted, not aggressive, and most of the time we point out when we're using sarcasm as to not offend others. A good majority of the time it's difficult to discern what tone of voice you're attempting to put across to us.

[~Kat~]

And again how many times have we offended them, done something against them or upset them in any way?

 

That is the reason why they are ALLIES.

I do not understand what you are talking about.

[demonicvampiregirl]

I do not understand what you are talking about.

How much have we done to offend them and tick them off and have reason to be their enemy?

 

Look at the allies we have then look at the enemies we have.

 

How many of them have attacked out of fear/hatred?

[~Kat~]

And again how many times have we offended them, done something against them or upset them in any way?

 

That is the reason why they are ALLIES.

We have not been at war with the British, New Zealand or Australia.

 

Please go back and do some research on WW1 and WW2.

[demonicvampiregirl]

We have not been at war with the British, New Zealand or Australia.

 

Please go back and do some research on WW1 and WW2.

We was never at war with England? '

[~Kat~]

I haven't seen anyone else use the eye-roll smilie in a long while; you're being quite excessive with it and in turn makes your posts seem a bit rude.

 

Generally our sarcasm is supposed to be lighthearted, not aggressive, and most of the time we point out when we're using sarcasm as to not offend others. A good majority of the time it's difficult to discern what tone of voice you're attempting to put across to us.

When I use this smilie, I am smiling and being funny, not rude, as it is smiling. Sorry you take offense.

 

Again, I am sorry because I do not use the smilies or use the words you would all like me to.

 

Please forgive me.

[~Kat~]

We was never at war with England? '

Well, what is your beef about what I posted?

Edited October 5, 2012 by ~Kat~