American Politics

[TikindiDragon]

I am not getting ito other countries. One I do not really care what they do as I do not live there, and I do not keep up with what is going on in other countries and their politics. Two, I really do not know enough about what you are asking me about those countries either.

I ask - and I ask *directly* like that - because if you *don't* consider the UK to be socialist/communist then you really do need to stop referring to Obama as socialist/communist as we already have laws in place that are far more left-wing that Obama is.

 

I have no issue with you disagreeing with me politically (although, for the record, I actually don't like Obama either. Personally I'd have voted for McCain last time, although Romney was a step too far to the right for me.) but I *do* have an issue with you tossing around the word 'socialism' like it is the worst thing possible. So I want you to take a good, long, hard look at the UK and Canada. If you wouldn't direct the same sort of hate at those countries, where those sort of policies are already in place, then you shouldn't direct them against your own duly elected President.

 

I will also note that the UK is categorically *not* run by China. Which does kind of indicate that implementation of some left wing policies =/= result in everyone speaking Chinese and living under a communist dictatorship.

[brairtrainer]

This is now about the military. You had better believe I support all of our allies that help us from any of the countries.

 

Yes, God Bless them all and

 

Amen

so if its about the military its different then?

 

Anyways, the GOP has a couple of years to the self-investigation, but unless someone powerful recomends it I think they are just gonna loose their footing.

[philpot123]

so if its about the military its different then?

 

Anyways, the GOP has a couple of years to the self-investigation, but unless someone powerful recomends it I think they are just gonna loose their footing.

Nobody takes the GOP seriously anymore. Maybe the Libertarian party will take its place as the 2nd major party? ;D but seriously. I don't like the Libertarian party very much in general, but I agree with them more than I agree with the current Republicans...

Edited November 16, 2012 by philpot123

[CrossingStar]

Nobody takes the GOP seriously anymore. Maybe the Libertarian party will take its place as the 2nd major party? ;D but seriously. I don't like the Libertarian party very much in general, but I agree with them more than I agree with the current Republicans...

I don't like the Republicans, myself. They just seem too oppressive to me.

[~Kat~]

House Republicans: Susan Rice Unfit To Head State Department

 

97 republican have sent a letter to Obama about Ambassador Susan Rice as an unfit candidate to succeed Secretary of State Hillary Rodham Clinton.

 

http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2012/11/19/h...26pLid%3D236459

 

Something is still not right here about what happened in Benghazi. I do not feel we still know the truth yet.

 

I still feel Susan Rice is being made a scape goat somehow by Obama.

[Kyrieath]

Kat, given it's the Republicans stating that idea, I somehow doubt Obama is the one using Rice as a scapegoat. Did you even actually read that article?

 

To clarify: the republicans are the ones stating she is unreliable and untrustworthy, while it seems she's been one of the potential contenders for Obama's choice to succeed Clinton. Obama, on the other hand, has voiced defense of her, claiming if there is any fault for what happened, it's on him, not her. You don't say that about a scapegoat.

 

I don't like Obama, as I've said before, but he's not responsible for every single wrong in our government. Saying 'blame Obama' whenever someone's aspirations are potentially blocked- by Republicans, no less, who do everything in their power to work against Obama in most things- is a getting a bit old.

Edited November 20, 2012 by Kyrieath

[~Kat~]

Kat, given it's the Republicans stating that idea, I somehow doubt Obama is the one using Rice as a scapegoat. Did you even actually read that article?

Yes I did, and I have also read many articles.

 

Somebody has messed up, and I believe it was Obama for sitting in his chair and doing nothing.

Edited November 20, 2012 by ~Kat~

[Kyrieath]

Yes I did, and I have also read many articles.

 

Somebody has messed up, and I believe it was Obama for sitting in his chair and doing nothing.

Then why provide the one that goes completely counter to your theory? In what way is he making Rice a scapegoat? I'm curious to your logic on that.

 

And Obama admitted such as directly as any politician ever will. Saying 'come after me, not her' if people objected to how the administration handled things is political code for 'I screwed up'. So again- how is he using her as a scapegoat for Benghazi?

[Vhale]

Susan Rice, Valerie Jarrett, Van Jones, Eric Holder, Shirley Sherrod <--Obama staffers targeted by GOP. What do they have in common?

 

huh. Tweet that was circulating yesterday. Not sure what I think about it but it raises an interesting point.

 

Source

[Fuzzbucket]

huh. Tweet that was circulating yesterday. Not sure what I think about it but it raises an interesting point.

 

Source

Indeed it does. That is - sad. How desperate can they get ?

[philpot123]

Ignorance is the problem, not racism. I highly doubt they are being targeted FOR their race.

Edited November 20, 2012 by philpot123

[Obscure_Trash]

huh. Tweet that was circulating yesterday. Not sure what I think about it but it raises an interesting point.

 

Source

Breakdown of what percent of a variety of races voted for Obama and Romney: http://mrcyriac.com/tag/black/

What the election would have looked like with regards to who used to be able to vote: http://www.buzzfeed.com/buzzfeedpolitics/w...ooked-like-with

A look at how a variety of races has voted in the past view years and how it's changed: http://latinosreadytovote.com/wp-content/u...-race-92-08.jpg

The same more quantified: http://latinosreadytovote.com/wp-content/u...-race-72-08.jpg

 

Considering that the GOP's strategy basically (with about one exception) seems to be "ignore diversity and instead try to get more white voters to come vote" that doesn't really seem to be that large of a jump to the conclusion.

 

I'll also try not to point out the hugely racist response Obama's re-election prompted, due to things like this (comments are safe so far - I mean, it's NPR, lol).

[demonicvampiregirl]

~Removed~

 

Obama's not at fault for all the things that have gone wrong. Bad things happen.

 

@Vhale

 

The republicans are on a downward spiral and clinging on to any desperate attempt to save face anymore. They look far worse to me now then they did 10 years ago.

Edited November 20, 2012 by SockPuppet Strangler

[brairtrainer]

~Removed~

 

 

Also I think the sprail will instead be a crash, I can already hear the explosions of the party failing because they won't let new ideas in

Edited November 20, 2012 by SockPuppet Strangler

[demonicvampiregirl]

~Removed~

 

 

Also I think the sprail will instead be a crash, I can already hear the explosions of the party failing because they won't let new ideas in

Yeah you got a point there. My father said that the republicans won't move out of the 50s and want to keep everyone there. Guess he's more right than I thought after seeing some of the stuff they been up to lately.

Edited November 21, 2012 by SockPuppet Strangler

[brairtrainer]

The funny part is some have good ideas, but as I was talking to my dad, who is at least resonable with his ideas he didn't understand what extra rights married couples had and said being gay was a choice...glad he hasn't said that to anyone else but man...makes me sad to think that even a resonable republican like himself doesn't understand the arguements that explain this is not the case.

[demonicvampiregirl]

The funny part is some have good ideas, but as I was talking to my dad, who is at least resonable with his ideas he didn't understand what extra rights married couples had and said being gay was a choice...glad he hasn't said that to anyone else but man...makes me sad to think that even a resonable republican like himself doesn't understand the arguements that explain this is not the case.

That's just sad. I don't see how being gay is a choice. If you like one gender or the other that's all there is. You can't force yourself to love someone else. :/

[Kyrieath]

The outspoken Republicans don't really bother to educate themselves about 'alternate sexuality' as anything other than a 'choice to be depraved' (politicians are so ones to talk down on others about that, am I right?). Their world is very simple: male is male, female is female, and thus the two are meant to pair and only those two.

 

That people are legitimately bi, transgender, homosexual or asexual (that last one really confounds most republican supporters I've ever spoken with) as well as a handful of other variants doesn't compute to them because they think the plumbing alone dictates all. The psychological and hormonal aspects that are influenced but not controlled entirely by said plumbing are pretty much beyond their willingness to understand. When the facts don't agree with you- ignore them. That's pretty much every politician's stance, really.

 

Which is honestly just rather sad when you consider some of these people are supposedly medically educated. What'd they do- throw that chapter of their studies away as 'perverse propaganda' and call it done?

[CrossingStar]

When the facts don't agree with you- ignore them. That's pretty much every politician's stance, really.

 

Which is honestly just rather sad when you consider some of these people are supposedly medically educated. What'd they do- throw that chapter of their studies away as 'perverse propaganda' and call it done?

That is pretty much what they do. Let's face it; if all politicians were completely honest about everything they'd never, and I mean never, survive in office for five minutes!

 

Plumbing dictates sexuality? Gimme a break! Even birds can be gay or lesbian, and that's probably the best argument against the 'God made men to be with women' stance.

[philpot123]

The funny part is some have good ideas, but as I was talking to my dad, who is at least resonable with his ideas he didn't understand what extra rights married couples had and said being gay was a choice...glad he hasn't said that to anyone else but man...makes me sad to think that even a resonable republican like himself doesn't understand the arguements that explain this is not the case.

Get rid of all legal definitions and benefits of marriage. Let churches marry whoever they will according to their theological beliefs. Let those who do not want a religious ceremony have some other sort of union according to their traditions or ideals. Let churches refuse to marry whoever they want. Married couples shouldn't get benefits just for being married no matter what their genders. There's your controversial opinion for the day

 

 

 

[Rosedamai]

Get rid of all legal definitions and benefits of marriage. Let churches marry whoever they will according to their theological beliefs. Let those who do not want a religious ceremony have some other sort of union according to their traditions or ideals. Let churches refuse to marry whoever they want. Married couples shouldn't get benefits just for being married no matter what their genders. There's your controversial opinion for the day

Phil, I think you're sorta tired of me pointing this out, but religion has nothing to do with marriage, and there are plenty of traditions where religion had nothing to do with marriage, so I don't think that's going to work.

[philpot123]

Phil, I think you're sorta tired of me pointing this out, but religion has nothing to do with marriage, and there are plenty of traditions where religion had nothing to do with marriage, so I don't think that's going to work.

That's why I said "those who do not want a religious ceremony should marry according to their traditions or ideals." However they choose, if they choose to do so. However anyone wants to do it by whoever will marry them. Just get rid of the legal benefits and restrictions.

[Obscure_Trash]

Just get rid of the legal benefits and restrictions.

 

Agreed. It's past time that we need to encourage people to get married and have lots of little babbies. x3

[philpot123]

I mean, think about it. If you got rid of ANY legal definition of marriage, we wouldn't be having this "legalize gay marriage" argument...

Edited November 21, 2012 by philpot123

[hazeh]

Then how would people get the benefits that are available through marriage? Or are you saying those aren't necessary whatsoever?