Jump to content
Crisis

American Politics

Recommended Posts

I'm no Obama fan - in fact I feel he is the biggest farce in U.S. history and will vote for anybody but him -

That literally made me do a double-take.

 

Would you mind elucidating your reasoning? That's a pretty strong epithet for a President whose international approval ratings are some of the highest seen among any recent Presidents, and I'm curious about why you feel that way, if you don't mind discussing it.

 

Edit: I think the Romney photo had the place it was taken on the Tumblr post, so when Tumblr comes back up, you should be able to see it.

Edited by inlaterdays

Share this post


Link to post
I'm no Obama fan - in fact I feel he is the biggest farce in U.S. history and will vote for anybody but him - but that picture did make me giggle. That was already an impressive looking crowd before someone attempted (and failed miserably) to make it look bigger, which was pretty foolish. Maybe they were trying to stretch the picture for layout purposes. Still bad.

 

Anyone know where that picture was taken?

I'm no Obama fan either but I think Romney is worse than him. Hence I'm voting for a third party canidate. If you don't mind me asking is that what you're doing Lady Lyzar?

Share this post


Link to post
Anyone know where that picture was taken?

I believe it was Henderson Pavilion in Henderson, Nevada.

Share this post


Link to post

As far as the lying, trickery, underhandedness goes.

 

 

So here in Missouri Claire McCaskill's entire campaign is "Todd Akin is a jerk, don't vote for him".

 

Every single day I get a flyer in the mail (no joking on every day), "don't vote for that guy, he's a jerk, here's the jerk things he did."

 

I'm like, really? How much money are you spending on these flyers and ads and where is that money coming from? We all get the point that he's a jerk (he is), now tell me what you are going to do.

 

 

I just get really tired that politics these days is all about discrediting the other person. I just want to know what YOU are going to do. Tell me why I should vote for you. Don't tell me why I should not vote for the other person.

 

 

*end rant*

Share this post


Link to post

I don't mind them telling me the reasons I shouldn't vote for the other person--provided they tell me what they're going to do differently so I know what they're going to do.

 

Too bad it doesn't happen as often as it should.

 

 

EDIT:

Romney: 'Some Gays Are Actually Having Children. It's Not Right on Paper. It's Not Right in Fact.'

 

...No comment (that would be appropriate for this forum).

Edited by KageSora

Share this post


Link to post

I wonder how much money the US would save if it limited the amount of time people had for campaigning. It feels like the moment the president is elected he is already campaigning for the next election. That must be so expensive.

Share this post


Link to post
I wonder how much money the US would save if it limited the amount of time people had for campaigning. It feels like the moment the president is elected he is already campaigning for the next election. That must be so expensive.

Sometimes second terms are more effective because the president can't be reelected next time.

Share this post


Link to post
What bugs me is this complete and utter lack of even trying to hide the lying, cheating, and fakery going on in this election. In politics you expect that there's going to be a certain amount of underhandedness, but usually the people who are engaging in that work hard to cover it up.

 

These days, however, it's just all out in the open. It disturbs me because A. I think that many of these people believe that they have a moral right to circumvent the process and basically nullify the reason that the country exists (all while playing the patriot card), and B. I'd almost rather have a person who was competent enough to pull of a lie well in office as opposed to someone so incompetent that they can't even think of a minimally believable cover story.

 

But, most of all, I'm rather scared by how unconcerned people seem to be about it. This kind of apathy is not healthy for us.

This. It's like people have plugged their ears. And, well we get the people we elect. I'm close to laughed at by my choice of not going to Wal Mart, but rather, going to Costco due to how they pay and treat their employees. Yet, I know of no other people who will go out of their way to do the same thing. Generally they will cite cost, then come in with some frippery the next week. We lack empathy. And I think that's something only hardship teaches. If that's the case, perhaps we're in for some.

 

There was a thoughtful article on yahoo about past presidencies and trends that they follow. Reading it, it made me think that Romney may be nuts in wanting the job, but the historical nature of it made it a curious read. I do think that if he does get elected, the Tea Party may give him hell. But, that totally depends on if he tries to be a moderate or a far right conservative. I don't think anyone has a clue. And as a wise person once said, if we don't know what we are running toward, all we are doing is running away.

 

Original Linky

 

 

Why the GOP Should Fear a Romney Presidency

By Jack M. Balkin, The Atlantic | National Journal – Thu, Oct 25, 2012

More From National Journal

 

What kind of president would Mitt Romney be? To answer this question, I'll draw on the work of Yale political scientist Stephen Skowronek, who has argued that presidents' fortunes depend on how they establish their political legitimacy in the particular circumstances under which which they assume power.

 

Reconstruction or Disjunction?

 

When new presidents take office, they face not only the country's existing domestic and international problems but also the political regime created by their predecessors. That regime consists of the interests, assumptions, and ideologies that dominate public discussion, and the relative strength of the parties' electoral coalitions. Our current political regime emerged in the wake of Ronald Reagan's election in 1980, and it has continued even through the Democratic presidencies of Bill Clinton and Barack Obama. It is politically conservative and skeptical of government, at least in contrast to the New Deal/civil-rights regime that preceded it. And the Republicans have been the dominant party.

 

Skowronek's key insight is that a president's ability to establish his political legitimacy depends on where he sits in "political time": Is he allied with the dominant regime or opposed to it, and is the regime itself powerful or in decline?

 

For example, Lyndon Johnson was allied with the Democrats' New Deal regime, while Richard Nixon -- the second Republican elected after FDR -- was opposed to it. And the regime itself can either be resilient or vulnerable. For example, Harry Truman became president when the New Deal regime was robust, while Jimmy Carter took office when it was on its last legs.

 

A president who has the good luck to run in opposition to a political regime that is falling apart is in the best possible position politically. He can sweep away the old and begin a new regime with a new set of political assumptions. Such "reconstructive" presidents seize the opportunity provided by being in the right place at the right political time; they create a new political reality that their successors inhabit. Franklin Roosevelt was able to blame Herbert Hoover and Republican ideology for the country's predicament during the Great Depression, just as Ronald Reagan blamed Jimmy Carter and the Democrats during the economic difficulties of the late 1970s. Reconstructive leaders -- Jefferson, Jackson, Lincoln, FDR, and Reagan -- are generally regarded both as pivotal in American history and among the country's most successful presidents.

 

Conversely, the unluckiest presidents -- like Hoover and Carter -- are those with the misfortune to be associated with a political regime in rapid decline. Skowronek calls these presidents "disjunctive," because they cannot hold their party's factions together, and things fall apart. These presidents are usually judged failures, and they place their successors in the best possible position to pick up the pieces and reconstruct politics in a new way.

 

What Skowronek calls "affiliated" presidents take office allied with a regime that is still relatively strong. George H.W. Bush is a recent example. Affiliated presidents can be quite successful, but their political opportunities are strongly shaped by the interests and ideology of the dominant regime. Ultimately their political legitimacy depends on their ability to meet new challenges and innovate in ways that do not offend party orthodoxy. Lyndon Johnson, for example, sought to complete Roosevelt's New Deal in his Great Society programs. George H.W. Bush's presidency was widely regarded as Ronald Reagan's third term. But when Bush raised taxes, he faced challenges within his own party for violating Republican ideology.

 

The last group of presidents is the most interesting: They take office opposed to a still robust political regime. Skowronek calls them "preemptive" presidents, because they must find a "third way" to establish their legitimacy and forestall opposition. Bill Clinton, the first Democrat elected after Reagan, is a recent example. Preemptive presidents can achieve a great deal if they understand that they face strong political headwinds and must always trim their sails. They can only survive by appearing moderate, pragmatic, and non-ideological, and by finding ways to borrow ideas from their political opponents. It was Clinton, after all, who announced that "the era of big government is over," and who balanced the federal budget, reformed the welfare system, and continually triangulated in order to maintain his political fortunes. (Barack Obama, as I'll discuss, could fall into this category or could become a reconstructive president.)

 

The Last of the Reaganites

 

If Mitt Romney is elected, he will be the fourth Republican president in the Reagan regime. That regime is no longer in its glory days. Demographic shifts have weakened the Republican electoral coalition, while Republican politicians have grown increasingly radical and ideological. At best, Romney will be an affiliated president attempting to revive the Republican brand after it has been badly tarnished by George W. Bush; at worst, he will be a disjunctive president, unable to keep his party's factions together, and presiding over the end of the Reagan coalition.

 

Throughout his career, Romney has presented himself as a pragmatic, data-driven, hands-on problem-solver. In this respect he resembles our two last disjunctive presidents, Herbert Hoover and Jimmy Carter. Yet in order to secure his party's nomination, Romney has had to twist his positions to conform to the most radical demands of the Republican base.

 

Part of Romney's problem is that the Republican Party's policy solutions seem -- at least outside the ranks of the faithful -- increasingly ideological and out of touch. No matter what conditions the nation faces, the Republican prescription is to lower taxes, increase defense spending, and weaken the social safety net. These ideas may have made sense in the 1980s. But by 2012, they seem as irrelevant as the Democratic Party's arguments must have seemed to many Americans in 1979.

 

Romney has been vague about his policy solutions because he rightly surmises that many of them will be quite unpopular. Yet once he becomes president, he will be forced to promote ideological commitments that are increasingly discredited with the public or risk losing political support within his own party. Romney, like Carter and Hoover, has argued that he will be an excellent administrator who will bring special problem-solving skills to the White House. But technocratic expertise is a tenuous strategy for maintaining political legitimacy, especially when a president must make unpopular decisions. Nor will it be enough to satisfy his base.

 

Movement conservatives have pushed Romney to take extreme positions throughout the 2012 campaign; they won't stop once he becomes president. As Grover Norquist explained in a speech to the Conservative Political Action Committee, "We are not auditioning for a fearless leader. We don't need a president to tell us in what direction to go. We know what direction to go. We want the Ryan budget .... We just need a president to sign this stuff." If Romney doesn't do as he's told, he will be in the same predicament as Jimmy Carter, who entered office with Democrats in control of both houses of Congress and yet found himself unable to move a domestic agenda because of intraparty bickering.

 

Romney's Impossible Task

 

Now assume instead the best-case scenario -- that Romney is an affiliated president carrying forward a still-robust Reagan regime. In that case, a Romney presidency will face two major challenges: factionalism and war.

 

As a regime ages, divisions emerge within the governing coalition. Affiliated presidents must find ways to give each faction something it wants without alienating the others. The difficulty is that, as time passes, the factions become more self-absorbed, insistent, and radical. Pleasing all of them may prove impossible; in that case, affiliated presidents have to choose which parts of the coalition to ally themselves with, risking the defection of the rest. This is the choice faced by presidents John F. Kennedy and Lyndon Johnson, who ultimately tilted in favor of a civil-rights agenda in the 1960s, alienating what had previously been the Solid South.

 

Affiliated presidents also face enormous pressures -- or temptations, depending on how one looks at it -- to use military force to display strength, both to the outside world and, equally important, to their political base. War hawks helped push James Madison into the War of 1812. James K. Polk avoided a war with Great Britain but ended up taking his chances on a war with Mexico. William McKinley found it politically impossible to resist a war with Spain. Sometimes, the results are politically successful; but sometimes, as in the cases of Lyndon Johnson and George W. Bush, they are not.

 

Romney will face these problems early in his presidency. He will inherit the leadership of a party with commitments to (1) further increasing tax cuts -- especially for the wealthy; (2) reducing deficits; (3) shrinking the size of government; (4) increasing defense spending; and (5) promoting a muscular foreign policy unafraid to use military force to solve foreign-policy problems, for example, in Iran and Syria. At the same time, Romney has promised to "save" popular middle-class entitlement programs like Social Security and Medicare, and to replace Obamacare with reforms that keep its most popular elements but jettison the features that make it economically practical. To top it off, he faces a reckoning in January 2013, when the Bush tax cuts expire and a sequester of defense and social programs goes into effect. That combination of tax increases and spending cuts will help solve the deficit problem, but it risks pushing the economy into a new recession, and it is completely unacceptable to the tax cutters and defense hawks in his party.

 

It is very difficult to see how Romney can maintain all of the commitments he has made to the various factions of his party, no matter what he says on the campaign trail. For example, passing the Ryan budget, further reducing tax rates, and repealing Obamacare will exacerbate the deficit problem, not help to solve it. Romney will have to pick and choose among these commitments, and in choosing, he will likely alienate significant segments of his coalition. Moreover, he will face insistent pressures from defense hawks and neo-conservatives in his party to keep the war in Afghanistan going and to use American military force against other targets. (Iran is the most obvious possibility.)

 

The more aggressive his foreign policy, however, the more it is likely to cost, and the more it will increase federal deficits. George W. Bush faced a similar problem in his first term, and simply arranged with Republicans in Congress to fund his military adventures through supplemental appropriations -- abandoning any pretense of deficit reduction.

 

To keep the economy afloat, Romney will likely pursue a Keynesian strategy once in office, goosing the economy through a combination of tax cuts and economic stimulus. He will simply choose a different mix than the Democrats would, and call it by another name. Yet this strategy will probably also increase the deficit in the short run and require Romney repeatedly to raise the debt ceiling, risking the ire of the Tea Party.

 

Romney's advisers have floated the idea that, in order for their leader to make all of the tough choices necessary to solve the country's problems, he should adopt the example of the 19th-century Democrat James K. Polk and be willing to serve for only one term.

 

Comparing Romney to Polk is both telling and ironic. Telling, because Polk was also an affiliated president -- the second Democrat elected after Andrew Jackson's reconstructive presidency. Just as Romney has promised Republicans that he will follow Ronald Reagan's policies, Polk self-consciously modeled himself after Jackson. Ironic, because Polk's legitimacy as president was often precarious. Polk offered himself as a compromise candidate, and announced that he would serve for only one term, because he wanted to assure the leaders of the various factions in his party that his presidency would not prevent their running in 1848.

 

Once in office, Polk was not known for making tough choices. He did not seek to stand up to his party's divided factions; instead, he sought to please them all. Polk tried to buy off the various warring elements of the Jacksonian coalition one by one through a combination of fiscal policy, tariff reform, territorial acquisition, and war. Each move created additional political problems. By the end of his term as president, his political situation had become impossible, and he left office a broken man, dying three months later. His policies of territorial expansion, while undoubtedly successful, also led to the tragedy of the Civil War.

 

If he truly is like Polk, Romney will not be able to make difficult choices in the public interest. Rather, he will find himself hemmed in by the conflicting demands of a radicalized party. Opposition to Barack Obama's presidency unified the Republicans. But once Obama is gone, the various factions of the party will find themselves in fierce competition, and the incoherence of the Republicans' various commitments will emerge starkly.

 

The predicament of a Romney presidency is that he may make George W. Bush look good by comparison. During most of Bush's eight years in office, the Republican Party was united and willing to follow his lead. Romney will not be so lucky. The party he heads has become so rigid, radical, and unrealistic that, despite his best efforts, he may end up as the last of the Reagan-era Republican leaders -- a disjunctive president like John Quincy Adams, James Buchanan, Herbert Hoover, or Jimmy Carter.

 

Republican partisans have often compared Barack Obama to Jimmy Carter, but Obama's situation is quite different from Carter's. Like Bill Clinton, Barack Obama is a Democrat swimming against the current of Reagan-era Republican politics. Carter, by contrast, took office as the defender of an exhausted New Deal Democratic regime; he offered himself as a problem-solving pragmatist who would get the country moving again. He tried to fix the New Deal coalition but found it beyond repair.

 

The next Jimmy Carter will be a Republican president -- a Republican who, due to circumstances beyond his control, unwittingly presides over the dissolution of the Reagan coalition. If Obama is reelected, we might decide in hindsight that George W. Bush best fits that description. But if Obama loses, the president who finally unravels Reaganism could turn out to be Mitt Romney.

 

Jack M. Balkin is Knight Professor of Constitutional Law and the First Amendment at Yale Law School, and the founder and director of Yale's Information Society Project, an interdisciplinary center that studies law and new information technologies.

Share this post


Link to post

I didn't see I got a response, so I'll try to lay out my reasons (and avoid writing a book in the process.)

 

I will be voting for Mitt Romney although I do not like him. IMO he is too wishy washy, although he did, from my viewpoint, give Obama a sound smackdown in the debates. IMO if a "protest vote" gets Obama re-elected, that's a bad thing. Granted I am not exactly in a battleground - my state is pretty red - but I am taking no chances.

 

Why I dislike Obama:

 

Foreign policy: Obama has snubbed and alienated our allies, especially Israel, while at the same time trying (and largely failing) to get hostile nations to like us. This has backfired in a most spectacular fashion. Pakistan is almost a nuclear power and calling for the destruction of Israel. North Korea continues to expand their nuclear program while extorting aid with illusory concessions to stop. We can also see how well "playing nice" flew over with the terrorist attack on the embassy in Benghazi, which Obama well knew was a terrorist attack within hours despite claiming the contrary. Instead of meeting with Netanyahu over the growing instability, Obama instead found time to appear on two TV shows. He has made the country appear weak and unreliable in times of crisis.

 

At home: It is claimed that the Deepwater Horizon oil spill is "Obama's Katrina". He turned down several offers of aid from other nations in helping contain the mess when the spill had just begun. The wasted time caused the aftereffects to be much, much worse and harder to clean up. He has also supported numerous failed government programs, such as Cash for Clunkers, which cost taxpayers much more than it made. Instead of being given to people in need of a car to look for work, perfectly good vehicles were destroyed for failing to meet environmental criteria. Feel-good legislation typically just does not work.

 

The rate of federal spending has skyrocketed under Obama. Studying this should be a real eye opener as to why we need to tone things down. No country has ever taxed and spent itself into prosperity (see example: Greece). The downgrading of our credit rating should have been warning enough that we have a serious debt problem. Eventually China is going to stop loaning money to us, and when they do, we will be in a fiscal chokehold. Spending needs to be cut, not expanded. Obama's "signature legislation" Obamacare was implemented at a terrible time - mid-recession and when we already have trillions of dollars in unfunded liabilities. Not to mention, the majority of people did NOT want it and a lot of Congress didn't even know what was in it. A 2400 page monstrosity.

 

Ah dang it, I wrote a book anyways. I'll explain more if you wish.

Share this post


Link to post

Thank you very much for explaining! I really appreciate it.

 

My viewpoints are quite different, but it's good to know where other people are coming from.

 

Both sides are going to need to work together in order to make progress, so understanding others' viewpoints better helps a lot.

Share this post


Link to post

LadyLyzar - I do take your points. Especially about the Israel thing - for other reasons; the unthinking support of their GOVERNMENT (not Jews in general) has done more damage in that region than anything else - I despair.

 

I have to say that while I think Romney will be a disaster for the country, as an outsider, I would welcome his winning for the fact just because he would probably be so insular that the international interference might slow down. But I fear for women and the poor under Romney. So in conscience - if I had a vote there, I would give it to Obama. (and the healthcare thing would save money in the end - I posted ages ago how much MORE everyone charges for things when an insurance company is paying for it. When that element is taken out, and it is universal and regulated, costs shoot down. No-one should lose their house as a result of illness.

 

I wish there were a way (and there cannot be in the US, under the US constitution !) for there never to be a majority government, ever. Consensus building is the best way to go - people then HAVE to listen to other points of view and manage a bit of give and take - and there would also be an end to pendulum politics - you know - "we gotta undo this even though it works, cos THEY set it up and we were against it" stuff .

Edited by fuzzbucket

Share this post


Link to post
I didn't see I got a response, so I'll try to lay out my reasons (and avoid writing a book in the process.)

 

I will be voting for Mitt Romney although I do not like him. IMO he is too wishy washy, although he did, from my viewpoint, give Obama a sound smackdown in the debates. IMO if a "protest vote" gets Obama re-elected, that's a bad thing. Granted I am not exactly in a battleground - my state is pretty red - but I am taking no chances.

 

Why I dislike Obama:

 

Foreign policy: Obama has snubbed and alienated our allies, especially Israel, while at the same time trying (and largely failing) to get hostile nations to like us. This has backfired in a most spectacular fashion. Pakistan is almost a nuclear power and calling for the destruction of Israel. North Korea continues to expand their nuclear program while extorting aid with illusory concessions to stop. We can also see how well "playing nice" flew over with the terrorist attack on the embassy in Benghazi, which Obama well knew was a terrorist attack within hours despite claiming the contrary. Instead of meeting with Netanyahu over the growing instability, Obama instead found time to appear on two TV shows. He has made the country appear weak and unreliable in times of crisis.

 

At home: It is claimed that the Deepwater Horizon oil spill is "Obama's Katrina". He turned down several offers of aid from other nations in helping contain the mess when the spill had just begun. The wasted time caused the aftereffects to be much, much worse and harder to clean up. He has also supported numerous failed government programs, such as Cash for Clunkers, which cost taxpayers much more than it made. Instead of being given to people in need of a car to look for work, perfectly good vehicles were destroyed for failing to meet environmental criteria. Feel-good legislation typically just does not work.

 

The rate of federal spending has skyrocketed under Obama. Studying this should be a real eye opener as to why we need to tone things down. No country has ever taxed and spent itself into prosperity (see example: Greece). The downgrading of our credit rating should have been warning enough that we have a serious debt problem. Eventually China is going to stop loaning money to us, and when they do, we will be in a fiscal chokehold. Spending needs to be cut, not expanded. Obama's "signature legislation" Obamacare was implemented at a terrible time - mid-recession and when we already have trillions of dollars in unfunded liabilities. Not to mention, the majority of people did NOT want it and a lot of Congress didn't even know what was in it. A 2400 page monstrosity.

 

Ah dang it, I wrote a book anyways. I'll explain more if you wish.

Lady Lyzar your reasons are actually the reasons I will not be voting for Obama. However, I can't see that as a good enough reason to vote for Romney. Your reasons remind me of my mom, who votes between the two major parties because she does not think that voting for a third party will help things. Its nice to see that you have thought it out and aren't like most people I've found who are voting for Romney (because they are strictly republican.)

 

 

Share this post


Link to post

I have to say that while I think Romney will be a disaster for the country, as an outsider, I would welcome his winning for the fact just because he would probably be so insular that the international interference might slow down.

Actually, a lot of Romney's advisors are neocons who were advisors to Bush. I have my issues with parts of Obama's foreign policy, but the neocons scare the hell out of me. Seriously, they're the guys that planned the invasion of Iraq and then waited for a trigger like 9/11 to provide a paper thin excuse to launch the attack.

 

My guess would be that we don't get out of Afghanistan, we end up in either Syria or Iran (possibly both), and we completely tank relations with Russia.

 

And you would know this better than I would, but I get the feeling that Europe wouldn't be all that welcoming of a return to the Bush era foreign policy mentality. Actually, I believe that the BBC did a poll of about 20 countries all over the world and found that pretty much no one preferred Romney (except for Pakistan) and I have to wonder if that's not caused, in part, by the lingering specter of Bush.

 

I will say, though, that I understand why people support Romney and want the change he's promising. This election has been one where lines that divide voters are very clear in many respects (how on earth are some people still undecided?!). However, one of my biggest problems with Romney is that he's shown that his positions aren't always very solid, and that's worrisome given who he's brought in to guide him in these matters.

Share this post


Link to post
And you would know this better than I would, but I get the feeling that Europe wouldn't be all that welcoming of a return to the Bush era foreign policy mentality. Actually, I believe that the BBC did a poll of about 20 countries all over the world and found that pretty much no one preferred Romney (except for Pakistan) and I have to wonder if that's not caused, in part, by the lingering specter of Bush.

TOO RIGHT - especially now that Bliar (NOT a typo) is gone !

Share this post


Link to post

I don't think it's going to matter no matter who wins the election. The changes Obama will seek if he gets reelected... those scare me a little. And the things Romney wants to do... shew. I don't even know where to start.

 

As an advocate for general freedom, Obama's voting record as far as gun rights sincerely worries me. He can't run on a platform of gun control, because he knows that would end up hurting him with how close this election is, but there was a comment in the second debate about reinstating the assault weapons ban. That was one of the least productive pieces of legislation ever. When it expired, there were no mass riots in the streets, no blood flowing... but we need it back? Sorry, but even if I WASN'T pro-gun, putting that sort of power in the hands of the federal government again bothers me. It didn't do anything before, it won't do anything if we renew it.

 

Obama also hasn't pushed to end the war on drugs, and Romney is a silly statist Republican, and with the current state of the Republican party, pushing for nationalized deregulation of drugs would be political suicide. But that's a huge deal to me personally.

 

As far as the comments about bayonets and all that ridiculous nonsense... Romney's point was that our military is smaller/weaker than it has been in the past I suppose? Even if that were true (which isn't likely...), would that really be a bad thing? I quite like the idea of downsizing the military...

 

 

I just want SOMEONE in office who knows the 10th Amendment exists, is that too much to ask?

 

/Disgruntled Libertarian

Share this post


Link to post

Obama could do ANYTHING and not lose a single voter.

 

He could shoot a puppy and he would still carry California.

 

That shows how blindly so many people are following him, thats how I feel.

Edited by Wantdew

Share this post


Link to post
Obama could do ANYTHING and not lose a single voter.

 

He could shoot a puppy and he would still carry California.

 

That shows how blindly so many people are following him, thats how I feel.

I feel people are blind if they follow either canidate without researching them. Hence I'm not voting for either major canidate

Share this post


Link to post
I feel people are blind if they follow either canidate without researching them. Hence I'm not voting for either major canidate

I'm sorry I should've been more clear. I meant that there are a major ammount of people how are just blindly following whoever without any research.

Share this post


Link to post

Exclusive: Classified cable warned consulate couldn't withstand ' Coordinated Attack '

 

Read more: http://www.foxnews.com/politics/2012/10/31...9#ixzz2AwmY2xwh

 

Wow, it does not take A ROCKET SCIENCE to FIGURE this one out.

 

The Ambassodor and everyone else should have been PROTECTED PERIOD.

 

This is War Time.

 

I DO BLAME OBAMA PERIOD.

 

I am very very ANGRY about this. IT SHOULD HAVE NEVER HAPPENED PERIOD.

Edited by ~Kat~

Share this post


Link to post
As far as the comments about bayonets and all that ridiculous nonsense... Romney's point was that our military is smaller/weaker than it has been in the past I suppose? Even if that were true (which isn't likely...), would that really be a bad thing? I quite like the idea of downsizing the military...

Yes indeed.

 

Not least because (yes the UK is guilty as well) invading other countries to get them to do what you want is SO not a good thing.

 

And bringing them "democracy" (whatever that is...) and then refusing to recognise the government they elect because "oh dear it wasn't the one they were SUPPOSED to elect" is downright deceitful (this one goes back to Bush, mind...)

Share this post


Link to post
Exclusive: Classified cable warned consulate couldn't withstand ' Coordinated Attack '

 

Read more: http://www.foxnews.com/politics/2012/10/31...9#ixzz2AwmY2xwh

 

Wow, it does not take A ROCKET SCIENCE to FIGURE this one out.

 

The Ambassodor and everyone else should have been PROTECTED PERIOD.

 

This is War Time.

 

I DO BLAME OBAMA PERIOD.

 

I am very very ANGRY about this. IT SHOULD HAVE NEVER HAPPENED PERIOD.

If we get into anymore conflicts we need to be going in with our heads and not our rage. Even with that information trying to figure out how to defend against the attack without making the other country suspicous and angry with us is a difficult diplomatic matter and can take months to figure out. The process should be streamlined but it was a similar problem with 9/11/01 attack.

 

Unfortunetly you need to have a few failures to try and fix the situation, and normally the fixes come after and are hasty over the top measures. (Japanese internment camps in the US, Airport Sequrity measures that take a half-hour to get through, etc.)

Share this post


Link to post

Days between another Republican candidate reaffirming their parties platform about rape, 0

 

http://www.king5.com/news/politics/Koster-...-176667781.html

 

Koster: "When a mother's life in in danger. I'm not going to make that decision. You know, I know they go out and... incest is so rare, I mean, it's so rare. But the rape thing...you know, I know a woman who was raped and kept her child, gave it up for adoption, she doesn't regret it. In fact, she's a big pro-life proponent. But on the rape thing, it's like, how does putting more violence onto a woman's body and taking the life of an innocent child that's a consequence of this crime, how does that make it better? You know what I mean?"

Share this post


Link to post
Days between another Republican candidate reaffirming their parties platform about rape, 0

 

http://www.king5.com/news/politics/Koster-...-176667781.html

 

The rape thing?

THE RAPE THING??!!

THE. RAPE. THING?????!!!!!!!!

 

*rollseyes, shuts computer in frustration*

I get so so upset hen someone says it like it's just a "thing." It's not. It's not and I don't want to deal with a politician who talks about rape in the same tone as he would buying groceries from a store. Replace it with "vegetable thing" and I bet the tone would be exactly the same.

Share this post


Link to post
The rape thing?

THE RAPE THING??!!

THE. RAPE. THING?????!!!!!!!!

 

*rollseyes, shuts computer in frustration*

I get so so upset hen someone says it like it's just a "thing." It's not. It's not and I don't want to deal with a politician who talks about rape in the same tone as he would buying groceries from a store. Replace it with "vegetable thing" and I bet the tone would be exactly the same.

Koster has a loose screw somewhere in his brain.

 

"I do not feel this Rape Thing" as he so casually calls it, has anything to do with what party you are from. It is his right to feel the way he does and only his opinion.

 

On the other hand, I feel he is so wrong.

 

RAPE is a a sexual assult involving sexual intercourse taken by physical force against someones consent.

 

This is devastating to a women, and I feel abortion should be availabe to a person that has been raped if she does not want to have the child. This is very tramatizing to ones mind and to ones body. To make her have to go through and have the child is even more abuse on her mind and body.

 

Incest is not that rare either. Incest happens all the time. This is not right either. It takes a sick person to force something like this on someone they are suppose to love.

 

I sure hope Koster does not get elected for anything. He disgusts me.

 

 

 

 

Share this post


Link to post

  • Recently Browsing   0 members

    No registered users viewing this page.