American Politics

Status
Not open for further replies.
Two questions I would enjoy reading the responses to.

1) Should the US allow a third party (or all recognized parties) the opportunity to debate during presidential elections?

2) If the GOP does crumble, and the Dems take control for the foreseeable future, is/can having a one-party domination good/be good for the nation?

The last question - in such scenario I would much prefer it be the Dems and not the Reps in control.
 
Rubbish...I'm wary of pols who don't let off steam. This is puritanical bullshit. Filner is a dirty bastard who is a danger to women but Weiner just chats with women who give their consent.

not saying it will mean he will make an awful Mayor. But he has not done anything to say he will be a good one either. So what is special about him. Mind you this looks a pretty boring line up. Whoever gets out of the Dem primaries will be the mayor.
 
Two questions I would enjoy reading the responses to.

1) Should the US allow a third party (or all recognized parties) the opportunity to debate during presidential elections?

2) If the GOP does crumble, and the Dems take control for the foreseeable future, is/can having a one-party domination good/be good for the nation?

The last question - in such scenario I would much prefer it be the Dems and not the Reps in control.

Yes.

Yes. (for the short term anyways)
 
Two questions I would enjoy reading the responses to.

1) Should the US allow a third party (or all recognized parties) the opportunity to debate during presidential elections?

2) If the GOP does crumble, and the Dems take control for the foreseeable future, is/can having a one-party domination good/be good for the nation?

The last question - in such scenario I would much prefer it be the Dems and not the Reps in control.

I'm all for allowing a "third party" candidate have a place at official POTUS debates, but there has to be some threshold of significance or demonstration of popular support established for that candidate(s). There are literally dozens of "third parties" out there and most of them have microscopic levels of popular support. They can't ALL be there, so you'd have to draw a line somewhere.

Dreams of the GOP "crumbling" are pure fantasy, if not outright lunacy. The way things shape up right now -- and things do change -- the GOP is set to hold the House after the 2014 general election and the GOP is set to take control of the Senate from the Dems. But there's a lot of time between now and November 2014 and we shall see what the gods ordain.

No, one party domination would not be good for the nation.
 
I'm all for allowing a "third party" candidate have a place at official POTUS debates, but there has to be some threshold of significance or demonstration of popular support established for that candidate(s). There are literally dozens of "third parties" out there and most of them have microscopic levels of popular support. They can't ALL be there, so you'd have to draw a line somewhere.

Dreams of the GOP "crumbling" are pure fantasy, if not outright lunacy. The way things shape up right now -- and things do change -- the GOP is set to hold the House after the 2014 general election and the GOP is set to take control of the Senate from the Dems. But there's a lot of time between now and November 2014 and we shall see what the gods ordain.

No, one party domination would not be good for the nation.



It would in the short-term. They'd get things done and we'd at least be headed in a direction rather than meandering aimlessly as a nation. In the long-term the corruption would take over as it always does.
 
I'm all for allowing a "third party" candidate have a place at official POTUS debates, but there has to be some threshold of significance or demonstration of popular support established for that candidate(s). There are literally dozens of "third parties" out there and most of them have microscopic levels of popular support. They can't ALL be there, so you'd have to draw a line somewhere.

Dreams of the GOP "crumbling" are pure fantasy, if not outright lunacy. The way things shape up right now -- and things do change -- the GOP is set to hold the House after the 2014 general election and the GOP is set to take control of the Senate from the Dems. But there's a lot of time between now and November 2014 and we shall see what the gods ordain.

No, one party domination would not be good for the nation.

I agree the GOP will hold the house through a couple of cycles. Them taking over the Senate is not cut and dry. it can go either way. They wont win the Presidency in the foreseeable future...unless they move to the middle which means letting go of their anti black/hispanic base. Not likely to happen...the Tea Party will see to that. With each cycle, The democrats get stronger. The GOP is shrinking. They will with their current platform become a Southern Regional party.
 
I agree the GOP will hold the house through a couple of cycles. Them taking over the Senate is not cut and dry. it can go either way. They wont win the Presidency in the foreseeable future...unless they move to the middle which means letting go of their anti black/hispanic base. Not likely to happen...the Tea Party will see to that. With each cycle, The democrats get stronger. The GOP is shrinking. They will with their current platform become a Southern Regional party.

True, no cut and dry, but right now things look bad in the Senate if you're a Dem.

I agree with your underlying thesis that the Tea Party is a serious problem for the Reps and I'd go a step further to state that tea partyers are clinically insane. I'll try to be careful here but I have the occasion to work with a self-proclaimed tea partyer in California in his capacity as a state legislator and I can tell you he's just flat out bonkers and borderline racist. If the Republicans followed his path the GOP would not just be an endangered species, but an extinct species.

As for POTUS, the smart money says Hillary of course. But the smart money often finds a way of being wrong. The only person I personally know who long before 2008 called it for Barack Obama in 2008 was Willie Brown -- everyone else had Hillary winning it. Willie has his doubts Hillary can win in 2016. I have no idea. My sense is that it's going to be Chris Christie on the Rep side. He's a grotesque walrus of a human being but he's been successful in an extremely blue state and has no fear whatsoever. Christie has enough of a populist streak in him to win the Iowa caucuses and New Hampshire and if he does both he's the Rep nominee. But he's moderate enough to be competitive in all the battleground states where POTUS elections are won and lost. It will be interesting to see how this plays out.
 
If the Republican party is brave enough to embrace All Americans...and I don't mean giving lip service as scum like Rand Paul are doing, then they will have a fighting chance. Christie will never make it through the primaries. As one Republican said, to win , they have to become Democrats. That really means letting go of the racists, which lets be honest are the base of the Republican party.

Too much being made about who controls the Senate in 2014. I will put money the Dems will retain it. The GOP is splintered already. But even if they take it, so what. Obama will veto all the crap they pass. The key is the presidency. In any case the Dems will come back in a Presidential year and take it back in 2016.

EDIT: It does not matter who the Democrat nominee is. My gut feel is it wont be Hillary. The Democrat nominee will be President. Actually we will know for sure after the Florida governor race in 2014.
 
If the Republican party is brave enough to embrace All Americans...and I don't mean giving lip service as scum like Rand Paul are doing, then they will have a fighting chance. Christie will never make it through the primaries. As one Republican said, to win , they have to become Democrats. That really means letting go of the racists, which lets be honest are the base of the Republican party.

Too much being made about who controls the Senate in 2014. I will put money the Dems will retain it. The GOP is splintered already. But even if they take it, so what. Obama will veto all the crap they pass. The key is the presidency. In any case the Dems will come back in a Presidential year and take it back in 2016.

EDIT: It does not matter who the Democrat nominee is. My gut feel is it wont be Hillary. The Democrat nominee will be President. Actually we will know for sure after the Florida governor race in 2014.

Pretty much. As much as I hate both parties, having a democrats controlled house and senate would be nice.

I hope it's not Clinton. Not that it makes a difference though.
 
Two questions I would enjoy reading the responses to.

1) Should the US allow a third party (or all recognized parties) the opportunity to debate during presidential elections?

2) If the GOP does crumble, and the Dems take control for the foreseeable future, is/can having a one-party domination good/be good for the nation?

The last question - in such scenario I would much prefer it be the Dems and not the Reps in control.


There were 49-41-8 percent votes between three parties in 1996, whereas 47.9-48.4 split between two parties in 2000.(the 47.9 guy won, what a broken system!) A party with 5% votes gets federal funding. I don't think that's happening again. Gary Johnson was a better candidate, or at least appeared to be better, than Romney.
 
There were 49-41-8 percent votes between three parties in 1996, whereas 47.9-48.4 split between two parties in 2000.(the 47.9 guy won, what a broken system!) A party with 5% votes gets federal funding. I don't think that's happening again. Gary Johnson was a better candidate, or at least appeared to be better, than Romney.

If they meet Obama half way we would be well on our way back as a country. Instead the GOP is willing to tank the economy to see him fail.

Huntsman was a good candidate...but the GOP would never nominate anyone who is moderate... and willing to work with the Dems. Instead they nominate a guy who stands for Nothing.
 
I wish my name was Saxby Chambliss. I mean, that name is just too perfect, how could a senator from George NOT be named Saxby Chambliss? It's like it's always been the name of one of Georgia's senators, and always will be.

And also makes me think of this guy:
175px-Foghorn_Leghorn.png
 
It would in the short-term. They'd get things done and we'd at least be headed in a direction rather than meandering aimlessly as a nation. In the long-term the corruption would take over as it always does.

I missed this one earlier, Grinner. Sorry!

"Getting things done" doesn't necessarily result in getting good things done. One party control is usually, but not always, inherently bad for the people as a whole, although by definition one party control results in a fantastic windfall for the interest groups that bankrolled that one party.
 
I missed this one earlier, Grinner. Sorry!

"Getting things done" doesn't necessarily result in getting good things done. One party control is usually, but not always, inherently bad for the people as a whole, although by definition one party control results in a fantastic windfall for the interest groups that bankrolled that one party.



Maybe, but if the opposition is too immature to govern in the interests of the nation then it's our best hope.
 
The GOP wants to shut down the government if they are not allowed to defund Obamacare. They want to wreck the economy because they are afraid people will realise they were lying through their teeth about how bad Obamacare is for people. And they have to think about the 2014 elections right?
 
Barney Frank slammed the thought of Christie as GOP presidential candidate on a recent Real Time with Bill Maher episode. Said Christie has been blocking gay rights for years amongst other things. I haven't followed the fat ass so I do not know much about him. All I see is a guy that is vocal, fat, and has become a cult of personality.

I don't have much like for Hillary either. Arrogant, self-obsessed, cunning... hell, she's a perfect politician in that regard. Her age will probably be the biggest denominator.

What other Dems are serious candidates at this stage?
 
It feels strange to say that the last decent President was Jimmy Carter but it's looking more like the truth every day.
 
Is this your typical GOP voter's feelings today?




The thing I like about that video is he explains what sodomy is, what context he is using the word, what the left is and why they might be sodomising him.

However he never gives one example of how the left are doing it.
 
Jim Demint made some comment that England has the third largest social healthcare system in the world but a rapidly diminishing healthcare infrastructure that doesn't achieve its intended goals (not verbatim but as close as I can remember). Claims the US will end up that way with ACA/Obamacare.

Care to comment resident Brits?



This guy, John Rothmann, I had never heard of until the other night when driving home after class and catching a brief segment on a local radio affiliate. I managed to hear Rothmann tell rightwing blowhard Rusty Humphries the actual happenings about Egypt and the US connection too (i.e. aid, support, who Obama should side with), as well as ACA/Obamacare. He also commented about Iraq being the wrong choice and that having Saddam in power was actually a better bad scenario that what it currently is. However, Rothmann is a huge pro-Israel guy. Of course Rusty has trying his best to tie Obama/Democrats to anything he could.
 
http://mediamatters.org/blog/2013/08/16/2016-gop-debates-and-the-wages-of-liberal-media/195444

2016 GOP Debates And The Wages Of "Liberal Media" Conspiracism

Blog ››› August 16, 2013 2:23 PM EDT ››› SIMON MALOY

The Republican National Committee voted this morning to ban NBC News and CNN from hosting GOP primary debates in 2016. On paper, the vote was to protest plans by NBC and CNN to produce, respectively, a miniseries and a documentary on Hillary Clinton. But there's a whole lot more undergirding this move to exclude these outlets from the Republican debates. The long-standing animus toward the "liberal media" among conservatives has morphed into outright paranoia, and it came to a head during the 2012 campaign when George Stephanopoulos asked a debate question about contraception.

Here's what happened. Rick Santorum talked about contraception a lot during his 2012 presidential campaign. He railed against "the dangers of contraception in this country, the whole sexual libertine idea" in an October 2011 interview with an evangelical blog. He told NBC's Today on December 29 that contraception "leads to lot of sexually transmitted diseases, it leads to a lot of unplanned pregnancies." On January 2, 2012, just a few days before participating in a Republican debate co-hosted by ABC News, Santorum was asked by then-ABC reporter Jake Tapper about his belief that states should be able to ban contraception. "The state has a right to do that, I have never questioned that the state has a right to do that," Santorum said.

Then, at the ABC/Yahoo News debate on January 7, moderator George Stephanopoulos asked Mitt Romney if he shared Santorum's belief "that states have the right to ban contraception." Romney responded: "George, this is an unusual topic that you're raising. States have a right to ban contraception? I can't imagine a state banning contraception." Shortly afterward, all hell broke loose.

From all corners of the conservative media came accusations that George Stephanopoulos, in asking about contraception, had "coordinated" with Team Obama to lure the Republican candidates into some sort of trap on birth control. Much of the speculation was driven by Dick Morris, which should have been a pretty big red flag in terms of reliability. The theory rested on the assumption that the contraception issue just came out of nowhere, which, of course, is not true -- Santorum was asked about it just five days before the debate by one of Stephanopoulos' colleagues.

But that falsehood coupled with Stephanopoulos' work in the Clinton White House were enough to convict, and his "collusion" with Democrats became an established fact in the conservative history of the 2012 campaign. Earlier this month, Sen. Rand Paul brought up the Stephanopoulos incident on Geraldo Rivera's radio
program. "Stephanopoulos asked an obscure question about Griswold and birth control when no Republicans were bringing up anything about trying to put limits on birth control," Paul said. "You wonder whether there was a concerted action between a former Democrat [sic] operative and, basically, the president's campaign."

Radio host Laura Ingraham asked Stephanopoulos directly about the question and the allegation that he colluded with the Obama campaign and he, obviously, denied it, bringing up Tapper's contraception question to Santorum. "I don't believe Santorum was campaigning on that," Ingraham responded. National Review's John Fund wrote a piece just today arguing that the GOP should "take back" the debates from the media, citing Stephanopoulos' question. Stephanopoulos "was obviously laying the groundwork for the Democrats' faux 'war on women' campaign theme by asking the Republican candidates, completely out of the blue, about contraceptives," writes an Atlanta Journal-Constitution columnist.

Again, there's nothing to indicate that Stephanopoulos acted in concert with Democrats. But conservatives have been conditioned for so long to reflexively mistrust and assume the worst of the "liberal media" that to them it seems at least plausible that this actually happened. And when they all start speculating in unison it starts to sound like the truth. That's how silliness like this festers to the point that it starts to express itself at the highest levels of the Republican Party.
 
don't think this is too smart on their part. Now NBC and CNN will just air the 'tasty' bits....

..and for those of us who watch the GOP primary debates just for the laughs...now we can just watch the 'highlights'.....
It's a joke of a party and hopefully it will collapse soon. Maybe then we will see an actual conservative and more libertarian party. Not some looney lobbyist bought big spending "Republican" party.
 
I'm confused. Months ago the far right was all about bombing Iran and Syria if necessary. Now they seem to be against action because it appears Obama may take action (hopefully not, which of course then means the right will attack him for not taking action).

I thought hawks love warmongering?
 
I'm confused. Months ago the far right was all about bombing Iran and Syria if necessary. Now they seem to be against action because it appears Obama may take action (hopefully not, which of course then means the right will attack him for not taking action).

I thought hawks love warmongering?
They have found themselves in a huge paradox. Support Obama or support their earlier stance. And as we know in politics it is much easier to go back against what you said before and somehow spin the current situation as different. It's no different than Obama, Biden and Kerry calling out Bush before Iraq about coming to congress for approval. Biden said he'd personally lead the impeachment proceedings (even though he was a senator and can't).

I just wish both sides would stop with the vitriol and lead.
 
:eek: :wenger:

http://www.nationalmemo.com/poll-louisianans-blame-barack-obama-for-katrina-response/
Poll: Louisianans Blame Barack Obama For Katrina Response

According to a startling new Public Policy Polling survey, Louisiana Republicans are not sure who was at fault for the disastrous response to Hurricane Katrina in 2005 — but a significant portion blame… President Barack Obama.

When asked “Who do you think was more responsible for the poor response to Hurricane Katrina: George W. Bush or Barack Obama?”, 29 percent answered Obama, 28 percent answered Bush, and 44 percent answered “Not sure.”

If this answer strikes you as odd, perhaps it’s because Obama was nowhere near the White House at the time, and had in fact only been in the Senate for less than a year when the storm struck the Gulf Coast in August, 2005.

Most of the country presumably remembers how the Bush administration’s inept handling of the storm’s aftermath came to define its rocky second term. While tens of thousands in New Orleans languished without aid for days after the storm, Bush infamously praised then-FEMA director Michael Brown as having done a “heckuva job” (ironically, Brown resurfaced in 2012 to criticize President Obama for responding to Hurricane Sandy too quickly). The bungled response helped push President Bush’s approval ratings into the low 30s, a nosedive from which he would never fully recover during his presidency.

Then again, maybe it’s not so surprising that a state in which taxpayer-funded schools taught lessons such as “the Great Depression was a socialist myth” doesn’t have the strongest institutional memory.
This is the second startling poll result from Public Policy Polling in the past month; earlier in August, a PPP poll found that celebrity chef Paula Deen is more popular than Dr. Martin Luther King Jr. among Georgia Republicans.

In a less surprising result, PPP’s Louisiana poll also found that Governor Bobby Jindal’s downward slide in the polls shows no sign of stopping. Just 28 percent approve of his job performance, compared to 59 percent who disappove — making Jindal the least popular Republican governor in the United States.

Correction: This story originally labeled Jindal as the “least popular governor in the United States.” With a 25 percent approval rating, Governor Pat Quinn (D-IL) is less popular according to PPP’s polling.
 
Status
Not open for further replies.