Jump to content
Crisis

American Politics

Recommended Posts

Well, on religion it's probably also important to remember there's that segment that thinks mormons in general are cultists. But I think personal experience can trump religion in some cases. In others, it's true that a person votes with their church or not at all.

 

I am curious, as far as red/blue states go, how accurate that feeling of My Vote is Wasted is. For example, Texas has grown by leaps and bounds. A LOT of people came here from California. I've wondered if it would change the voting demographic. And how do you know until it happens? But maybe 10% of the people at work, are actually from this state. I also saw an interesting article (can't find it now) but it suggested that people registered with either party were dropping, especially in swing states. Granted, I've no idea if that means people have an open mind for a 3rd party or if they just aren't voting.

Share this post


Link to post

Just inserting my opinion about the Ron Paul thing-

I'm not a big fan of libertarianism simply because I think the United States of America were meant to be just that- United- and his way of thinking makes me feel like all the states would just go back to completely self governing, and then we'd just have a bunch of state-nations that aren't unified in any way.

 

Edit:

 

I'm a big fan of "One nation, indivisible" (:

Edited by Shiny Hazard Sign

Share this post


Link to post

Religion, usually Christianity, has ingrained itself in the government in so many ways we usually don't realize it. The pledge of allegience, on our coins, etc. It really annoys me. I stopped saying the pledge a while ago, and I really wish that people would realize Christianity isn't the only religion in the country. DX

Share this post


Link to post
Religion, usually Christianity, has ingrained itself in the government in so many ways we usually don't realize it. The pledge of allegience, on our coins, etc. It really annoys me. I stopped saying the pledge a while ago, and I really wish that people would realize Christianity isn't the only religion in the country. DX

It wasn't in the original Pledge, which is why I don't repeat the doctored version. I much prefer the Pledge the way it was written (:

Share this post


Link to post

Just inserting my opinion about the Ron Paul thing-

I'm not a big fan of libertarianism simply because I think the United States of America were meant to be just that- United- and his way of thinking makes me feel like all the states would just go back to completely self governing, and then we'd just have a bunch of state-nations that aren't unified in any way.

 

Edit:

 

I'm a big fan of "One nation, indivisible" (:

The United States was not MADE to be "united." We were originally a union of many INDIVIDUAL states. The national government was intended to be a VERY small force. Post-reconstruction, that all changed. It is only very recently in our history that the idea of individual state loyalties was replaced with nationalism. The pledge is a new invention, written by an outspoken socialist, that does not reflect the ideals of the founding fathers or the text of the constitution.

 

The states were intended to be self-governing. That's why we had to have a 10th Amendment to clarify it. The libertarian position is that our constitution is essentially a libertarian document.

 

It wasn't in the original Pledge, which is why I don't repeat the doctored version. I much prefer the Pledge the way it was written (:

 

I don't like the pledge at all, because A. I don't like the idea of swearing fealty to a nation, and B. the "indivisible" part bothers the HECK out of me. It's simply NOT what our country was supposed to be.

Edited by philpot123

Share this post


Link to post
The United States was not MADE to be "united." We were originally a union of many INDIVIDUAL states. The national government was intended to be a VERY small force. Post-reconstruction, that all changed. It is only very recently in our history that the idea of individual state loyalties was replaced with nationalism. The pledge is a new invention, written by an outspoken socialist, that does not reflect the ideals of the founding fathers or the text of the constitution.

 

The states were intended to be self-governing. That's why we had to have a 10th Amendment to clarify it. The libertarian position is that our constitution is essentially a libertarian document.

 

 

 

I don't like the pledge at all, because A. I don't like the idea of swearing fealty to a nation, and B. the "indivisible" part bothers the HECK out of me. It's simply NOT what our country was supposed to be.

The thing is you need a strong national government to run things, especailly when it comes to forign policy (I don't mean strong army I mean they need to be the undisputed head governing body of a nation) a strong government can be small.

Share this post


Link to post
The thing is you need a strong national government to run things, especailly when it comes to forign policy (I don't mean strong army I mean they need to be the undisputed head governing body of a nation) a strong government can be small.

I agree. The national government can be strong in their specified roles, and non-existent outside of their sphere. Hence, small government, powerful states.

Share this post


Link to post
I agree. The national government can be strong in their specified roles, and non-existent outside of their sphere. Hence, small government, powerful states.

However there needs to be a small limit on states powers, not taxing other states, no printing money, basically we need to prevent the problems that appeared under the articles of confederation. We also need the national government to pass laws that allow are land to be united and to get rid of big controversy. Such as:

 

1. States have to honor other states marriage licenses. Even if the couple is a same sex couple. The small but powerful government since it deals with laws that cover married couples could pass a law that stated that same sex marriage was allowed or not allowed everywhere. (honestly I'm on the allowed side just wanting to make that clear)

 

2. States cannot tax other states for using shared resources. Like Ohio can't tax people on the Ohio river because they share the same name, and neither can any of the other states that border that river just because they are on the border. (Interstate Commerce)

 

3. Protecting free speech, because back when the government had less power states were allowed to limit free speech because they were not bound by the amendments. That is a fairly recent(historically) protection. The same with the other amendments the states need to follow now.

Share this post


Link to post
Remember Nathan Sproul? The guy the RNC fired for election fraud issues in 10 states. Well, they had him change his company name and now he's working for them again. Apparently he did the same trick in 2004. Even more fun, the company's address is listed as the same as Karl Rove's superpac.

 

Updating article Smaller Think Progress Article

 

And in the mean time, Republicans are suing to force Ohio to limit voting in areas that favor democrats. Article

 

And of course, while unions are not allowed to tell people how to vote, it's legal for corporations to. And they are. At will employment states of course. What's funny is this link is from a Russian news site.

Citation

 

Republicans. Repressing your rights, one state at a time.

http://notlarrysabato.typepad.com/doh/2012...tion-forms.html

 

Virginia GOP seen throwing away voter registration forms, bringing up alarm because police are deciding whether or not it is a crime to do so and are working with a group who made up voters on voter registration forms. Yesterday was also the last day to register to vote in Virginia.

Share this post


Link to post

Adding to our list of voting monkey business, apparently Arizona's largest county had an oops when printing their voter ID cards. But... only the spanish ones. They list Nov 8th as election day instead of the 6th.

 

Citation

 

Also, a leaked audeo has been released as Romney asking the National Federation of Independent Business to make clear to their employees how they should vote

"I hope you make it very clear to your employees what you believe is in the best interest of your enterprise and therefore their job and their future in the upcoming elections. And whether you agree with me or you agree with President Obama, or whatever your political view, I hope — I hope you pass those along to your employees. Nothing illegal about you talking to your employees about what you believe is best for the business, because I think that will figure into their election decision, their voting decision and of course doing that with your family and your kids as well. "
Citation

 

If I'm not mistaken, isn't it illegal for Unions to do that? this is what he had to say about Teacher's Unions, to me it appears to be a double standard.

 

Republican presidential nominee Mitt Romney said Tuesday that he thinks teachers unions should be banned from making political contributions because union leaders often negotiate contracts with Democratic politicians they’ve helped elect, a situation he called “an extraordinary conflict of interest.”

 

“I believe that we simply can’t have a setting where the teachers unions are able to contribute tens of millions of dollars to the campaigns of politicians, and then those politicians, when elected, stand across from them at the bargaining table, supposedly to represent the interest of the kids,” Romney told host Brian Williams in a 45-minute appearance at NBC’s Education Nation Summit in New York.

Edited by Vhale

Share this post


Link to post

Yeah, it's illegal. But some unions do it anyway.

 

Kind of funny I have trouble finding articles showing democrats do the same thing as Republicans in regards to voter fraud....oh wait...the majority of the news sites are democrat...gee that must be why. They tend not to report the 'bad things' their own side does....

 

Ya know...Jesus had a saying in regards to this: don't reach for the speck in your neighbor's eye before removing the log in your own. Something like that. Or how about 'he who is without sin cast the first stone'? (or perhaps rephrasing it to 'he who is without corruption cast the first stone' to make it match the political theme better...as I think we all know both Rep and Dems are corrupt as hell....)

Share this post


Link to post

Yeah, it's illegal.  But some unions do it anyway.

 

Kind of funny I have trouble finding articles showing democrats do the same thing as Republicans in regards to voter fraud....oh wait...the majority of the news sites are democrat...gee that must be why.  They tend not to report the 'bad things' their own side does....

 

Ya know...Jesus had a saying in regards to this:  don't reach for the speck in your neighbor's eye before removing the log in your own.  Something like that.  Or how about 'he who is without sin cast the first stone'? (or perhaps rephrasing it to 'he who is without corruption cast the first stone' to make it match the political theme better...as I think we all know both Rep and Dems are corrupt as hell....)

Honestly? I wouldn't be surprised if there was more corruption in the Republican party than in the Democrat. You may be right, these things may not be reported on as much because the MSM is predominately liberal, but considering how terrible Republicans are... I mean, it almost reminds me of the scandals in the Catholic church. Here's an institution that claims to be upright and respectable, conservative, "family values," and yet their actions are speaking louder than their words.

 

You're right about the words of Jesus though. This entire year's presidential campaign has been built on "specks." I've hardly heard anything from the candidates themselves about what they say they want to do. It's a repetitive "He wants to do THIS to the country!" "No I don't, you're taking my words out of context! But anyways, HE wants to do THAT to welfare!" "THAT'S NOT WHAT I SAID!" ... etc...

Edited by philpot123

Share this post


Link to post
Yeah, it's illegal. But some unions do it anyway.

 

Kind of funny I have trouble finding articles showing democrats do the same thing as Republicans in regards to voter fraud....oh wait...the majority of the news sites are democrat...gee that must be why. They tend not to report the 'bad things' their own side does....

 

Ya know...Jesus had a saying in regards to this: don't reach for the speck in your neighbor's eye before removing the log in your own. Something like that. Or how about 'he who is without sin cast the first stone'? (or perhaps rephrasing it to 'he who is without corruption cast the first stone' to make it match the political theme better...as I think we all know both Rep and Dems are corrupt as hell....)

No. There is no excuse for sitting by and allowing corruption to happen without speaking out. None. Where would Christianity be, if the apostles had sat back and said, ya know... everyone is a sinner, we should quit trying. There's no point in getting involved. I don't recall any lessons saying it's okay to break the ten commandments as long as some other person did it first.

 

Also, given how many people are neither Democrat nor Republican, this situation is far bigger than either party and that parable does not apply. We, are Americans. We should demand better. Unless we stand up for each other, then we may as well "elect" a king and have done with it. The quote from this election that stands out the most to me is actually Ann Romney's when she told the conservative media to Shut up, this is hard.

 

I may not agree with her politically, but on this, she was right. Doing something, trying to make change, it is hard. It's work. Being passive and just accepting things must be the way they are, that's the easy way out.

 

And, the liberal media claim to martyrdom is bunch of malarky. There was no shortage of news coverage for Clinton's affairs, ACORN or any of the other big Democratic scandals. The very existence of Fox news belies that point.

 

What the RNC is doing with Voter ID laws, possibly the business federation, Nathan Sproul's company is wrong. It's illegal. And if any patriot that cares about Democracy in this country should is afraid to say it, we've got a very big problem.

Share this post


Link to post

I don't believe that the passage I quoted meant 'everything sins, let's just give up'. I beleive it means 'take care of your own sins first before you start bashing someone else for theirs, else you are a hypocrit'. There are unfortunately a lot of hyprocrits in politics.

 

Considering how the Dems and Rep have (essentually) a stranglehold over who has the best chance of being nominated (e.g. the earlier discussion about third parties), I think the parable still applies. Both major parties are too busy slinging mud at each other to bother sorting out their own issues first (and stomping on the little guy (third party) to ensure they don't have a chance to get represented). Hell, I think both major parties have gotten too big and too corrupt and should be disbanded.

 

I also support term limits for House/Senate electees: we have too many 'career' politicians in there. Problem is, they would never vote to apply such a thing and too many people keep voting in the incumbants in because they are too 'used' to who the incumbant runs things (probably one reason my state can never get rid of freaking Reid....).

 

 

Share this post


Link to post

Getting used to what an incumbant does is bad in most cases, even more so at the national level. In my home town we've had the same mayor for years, but he is good and fair and tries to get out with the people and get all the work done he needs too.

 

The City Council on the other hand was a closed back room deal group that most people didn't like but voted for because they were used to them, were family of them, or friends. After my Father got on it got better but only because he refused to leave things in the back room, and actually answered questions at the meetings and voted no when he believed the idea was bad for the city. He made the preisedent of council so mad because he wasn't doing things the normal way that he tried to block legislation my dad put out to have sidewalks built to the new middle school (politics at its jerky finest).

 

The School Board is just as bad with not talking during their meetings. My dad's plan is to run and try to see if he can help them be more open, and try to end the bullying problem in the schools.

Share this post


Link to post
Getting used to what an incumbant does is bad in most cases, even more so at the national level. In my home town we've had the same mayor for years, but he is good and fair and tries to get out with the people and get all the work done he needs too.

 

The City Council on the other hand was a closed back room deal group that most people didn't like but voted for because they were used to them, were family of them, or friends. After my Father got on it got better but only because he refused to leave things in the back room, and actually answered questions at the meetings and voted no when he believed the idea was bad for the city. He made the preisedent of council so mad because he wasn't doing things the normal way that he tried to block legislation my dad put out to have sidewalks built to the new middle school (politics at its jerky finest).

 

The School Board is just as bad with not talking during their meetings. My dad's plan is to run and try to see if he can help them be more open, and try to end the bullying problem in the schools.

We need more people like your father running things...

Share this post


Link to post

Obama On Daily Show: President Defends Libya Response To Jon Stewart

 

He is still trying to lie his way out of this. Incompetent Period

 

http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2012/10/18/o...26pLid%3D222432

 

His niceness got these people killed and denying them the weapons they needed.

 

This is disgusting period in my opinion.

 

Anyone with common sense knew this was a terrorist attack.

Edited by ~Kat~

Share this post


Link to post
Obama On Daily Show: President Defends Libya Response To Jon Stewart

 

He is still trying to lie his way out of this. Incompetent Period

 

http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2012/10/18/o...26pLid%3D222432

 

His niceness got these people killed and denying them the weapons they needed.

 

This is disgusting period in my opinion.

 

Anyone with common sense knew this was a terrorist attack.

I don't see what "lie" you're talking about. You've been saying this for a while but haven't actually pointed out the discrepancies.

 

I think that, yes, the video could have definitely been a triggering event and that the President and those looking into the issue were trying to figure out what exactly had happened. Sometimes you don't get answers right away, that's no reason to claim the President "lied" about anything.

 

Just because you don't like what he's saying, doesn't make it a lie.

Share this post


Link to post
I don't believe that the passage I quoted meant 'everything sins, let's just give up'. I beleive it means 'take care of your own sins first before you start bashing someone else for theirs, else you are a hypocrit'. There are unfortunately a lot of hyprocrits in politics.

But I wasn't referring to the passage, I was questioning the application of it. The response was not to condemn several illegal acts in multiple states, but to try to find dirt on the other guy and condemn the media (not politicians) in general for reporting it.

 

If the action we are complaining about is reporting an activity, the opposite reaction is to not report it. Hence, silence. If it wasn't, then what would we have them do? Are we not allowed to report a crime when it happens? Maybe only if we take some kind of purity test? Imo, Silence doesn't work. It's like someone getting pummeled by bullies hoping they go away. It might happen, but usually doesn't.

 

Saying both are corrupt and trying to ignore the issue doesn't work for me either because I've found it's usually followed by both sides throwing up their hands and doing nothing. It bothers me that the Tea Party is complacent about it. If anything, they should be pointing it out. There are many passages in the bible about confronting your brother regarding sin. And after all, the original Tea Party was about Taxation without Representation. If people's votes are being tossed or gerrymandered into oblivion, imo, that's the exact same thing the original Tea Partiers fought against. I can't imagine they'd be happy with people using their name, allowing such a thing to pass in their memory.

 

I also think this will end up as an arms race. If one side can do this much, very publicly, why would the other side not follow suit? Especially if there is a lack of repercussions?

Share this post


Link to post
We need more people like your father running things...

Thank you Slaskia, I've honestly told him that after school board he better run in state elections and try to see if he could eventually run for higher offices, but as he is getting older and the fact that he is not a career politicain make it unlikely. If I didn't feel another calling I probably would have gone into politics to try to continue what he was doing.

Share this post


Link to post

Food for thought: the BBC has an interesting article today on a survey about views of Obama vs. Romney from people outside of America http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/world-us-canada-20008687

A BBC World Service opinion poll has found sharply higher overseas approval ratings for US President Barack Obama than Republican challenger Mitt Romney.

An average of 50% favoured Mr Obama, with 9% for Mr Romney in the survey of 21,797 people in 21 countries.

Share this post


Link to post

That does not surprise me, but where is the other 41%? if 50% are for Obama and 9% for Romney that leaves a huge gap.

From the source of the survey Global Poll: Obama Overwhelmingly Preferred to Romney (full pdf of results), the rest of the answers are a mix of: 'either', 'neither', 'no difference', 'other' and 'don't know'.

 

But whilst the response rates of the individual countries vary wildly - only one of them (Pakistan) saw Romney as more preferable to Obama (and that was 14% vs 11% for Obama), with everyone else vastly in favour of Obama.

Share this post


Link to post
From the source of the survey Global Poll: Obama Overwhelmingly Preferred to Romney (full pdf of results), the rest of the answers are a mix of: 'either', 'neither', 'no difference', 'other' and 'don't know'.

 

But whilst the response rates of the individual countries vary wildly - only one of them (Pakistan) saw Romney as more preferable to Obama (and that was 14% vs 11% for Obama), with everyone else vastly in favour of Obama.

Ah-Ha! Thanks for that. I was wondering if maybe some third party canidate was getting some good light over our borders but it seems our news are still keeping them down.

Share this post


Link to post

That is a little surprising. Romney's overseas tour did not go well. It would have been interesting to see Israel in there, I assume it would have been pro-Romney given that he and their leader are old friends.. I would guess Pakistan's poll was colored by the drone warfare and Osama hunt.

 

Also, the man caught in Virginia throwing away voter registrations won't be charged. Apparently, if he's to be charged of a crime, a special board has to ask for him to be prosecuted. And that board has a Republican majority. So, unless they ask for him to be charged, and they currently aren't, he gets off scot free.

 

http://wtvr.com/2012/10/22/ken-cuccinelli-...-investigation/

Edited by Vhale

Share this post


Link to post

  • Recently Browsing   0 members

    No registered users viewing this page.