If it was a Chinese menu, you'd vote for it.
US Presidential Election: Tuesday November 6th, 2012
- Thread starter Team Brian GB
- Start date
- Status
If it was a Chinese menu, you'd vote for it.
Alot of folk blame Nader for Bush's victory in 2000 and probably also in 2004, claiming he sucked up a lot of the progressive vote which would have otherwise gone to Gore/Kerry.
Its an annoying paradox - you vote for an independent and you're giving the repubs an edge, you vote democrat and you contribute to keeping the status quo.
we need to be engaged....informed.
the trouble is even the media is so biased. most people get the information from the tv.
give you an example. think it was the Davis execution. I was watching MSNBC and they had me convinced a completely innocent man was being executed.
Then I read elsewhere and I was not so sure.
Why cant all stations present the same impartial facts?
it is difficult but we need to participate. If we want to change things, it is we who are going to do it.
Not voting is worse than voting for the 'wrong guy' if you know what I mean.
Vote. But be as best informed as possible.
What we have for journalists all have their agenda. How many of them properly challenge these politicians?
Stay active...keep pushing.
I bet you we will eventually get there..all of us.
the trouble is even the media is so biased. most people get the information from the tv.
give you an example. think it was the Davis execution. I was watching MSNBC and they had me convinced a completely innocent man was being executed.
Then I read elsewhere and I was not so sure.
Why cant all stations present the same impartial facts?
it is difficult but we need to participate. If we want to change things, it is we who are going to do it.
Not voting is worse than voting for the 'wrong guy' if you know what I mean.
Vote. But be as best informed as possible.
What we have for journalists all have their agenda. How many of them properly challenge these politicians?
Stay active...keep pushing.
I bet you we will eventually get there..all of us.
I've never met anyone whose convinced me that not voting is a principled stance. And I've met a lot of people who've tried. No. You vote. Vote for a stupid party or an independent, but you vote.
Forgetting or being hungover is of course a completely understandable excuse though.
Forgetting or being hungover is of course a completely understandable excuse though.
Most elections look like this to me. South Park got it right, choosing between a douche and a turd sandwich.
JFK and Barry Goldwater planned to travel the country together to campaign in the 1964 election. That would have been something.
I don't think the problem is parties, it's too few parties. You've got a much more personality-centered political discourse than we do. Here you don't even technically vote for a Prime Minister, even though in most cases you will have some idea of who will become Prime Minister based on the make-up of government.
The problem is that the two parties contain individuals from probably all sides of the political spectrum. There's a much larger difference between individual Democrats, or individual Republicans, than there is in a country with a multi-party system.
There will, of course, be shifts in the internal make-up of the parties, taking it in one or the other direction in general. But that's far from as transparent and obvious as in a system where you have several smaller (and some larger) parties where you've generally got a good idea of what they stand for and will push for in government or opposition.
I've never met anyone whose convinced me that not voting is a principled stance. And I've met a lot of people who've tried. No. You vote. Vote for a stupid party or an independent, but you vote.
Forgetting or being hungover is of course a completely understandable excuse though.
Or turning up to the polls at 9:55 when they close at 10:00, in the US a judge will extend the opening hours for you but here if you are not in the building by 10:00 you are locked out even if you have been queueing for hours to get in.
That sort of argument annoys me when people make it, the United States is a democracy, no candidate is entitled to a block of votes, it is up to them to go out and win them.
To be fair, that's exactly the reason why many systems (including electing the Tory leader) use some form of transferable or alternate vote. That way the political spectrum isn't compromised by the running of similar candidates.
Its not as wonderfully simple as that though. In the end it always boils down to two candidates, who themselves have only really got that far because of the disproportional funding they've received - not from voters in the form of private donations, but by firms, corporations and various lobbies who essentially decide elections. Ultimately when it comes to presidential elections you have to swallow your pride and opt for either the democrat or the republican candidate, anything else is more or less a wasted vote that could ironically prove advantageous to your undesired candidate.
In its current state, independents or fringe party candidates only really stand a chance when applying to 'lesser' offices such as that of mayor, or perhaps even Governor at best. At this current time it would only be candidates of the dems and repubs that are recognised and approved by their rank and file who have any real chance of ascending to the presidency. Look at Obama's biggest donors for his 2008 election and you'll see that he still isn't a radical shift away from the norm when compared to his predecessors.
The answer to the third part 'spoiler' vote if you like is to have people vote their second choice candidate. That way more people will feel confident voting the 3rd party candidate and not fear that the 'worst' candidate will get in.
It will also increase total turnout imo.
I forgot to add the idea would be to make sure the winning candidate gets more than 50% of the votes.
I'm talking about run off votes.
It will also increase total turnout imo.
I forgot to add the idea would be to make sure the winning candidate gets more than 50% of the votes.
I'm talking about run off votes.
Yeah, it sounded a decent idea when we had the referendum over here earlier in the year. But, alas, we voted against it, so that's UK voting reform off the table for another generation.
Obama's $745m campaign was actually quite a radical shift in Presidential politics. Nearly 90 percent of his campaign funds came from individual donations on his website. He basically revolutionized how Presidential campaigns are funded by allowing anyone to sign up to his site and contribute.
The issue of why fringe candidates don't succeed isn't corporate in nature. It has to do with the two current parties partially trying to subsume any third party movements within their political sphere. The reform, green, and tea party movements over the past 20 years haven't been able to sustain their independence because either the Dems or GOP have courted those voters to return to their parties.
This should go down well.....
Newt Gingrich: Palestinians are 'an invented' people [video] - latimes.com
Newt Gingrich: Palestinians are 'an invented' people [video] - latimes.com
Oh, Newt.
Please die of cancer.
Please die of cancer.
The way both parties bend over and present the inside of their rectums to the Jewish lobby is bewildering to me. I look at Israel as the 53rd state, otherwise the amount of money we give them doesn't make any sense to me. They can't have naked pictures of EVERY politician with a hooker that looks like Laurence Taylor.
I don't even know what 'an invented' people is supposed to mean. Like how Americans are an 'invented' group, wasn't there one day and there the next?
I'm certainly not anti-Israel, considering the pre-WWII situation there, creating Israel wasn't any crazier than most of what went on in those days. And I didn't watch the clip, but the general trend is to dehumanize the enemy, and this sounds like more of it. They don't have a right to create a nation, it's not real, just 'invented'.
I don't even know what 'an invented' people is supposed to mean. Like how Americans are an 'invented' group, wasn't there one day and there the next?
I'm certainly not anti-Israel, considering the pre-WWII situation there, creating Israel wasn't any crazier than most of what went on in those days. And I didn't watch the clip, but the general trend is to dehumanize the enemy, and this sounds like more of it. They don't have a right to create a nation, it's not real, just 'invented'.
Don't be intolerant, it's just his opinion. He's entitled to it. Just as I'm entitled to the opinion that the earth is flat as a fecking pizza.
I was only making the point that Obama's campaign still attracts plenty of funding from the JP Morgans and Goldman Sachs which seem to imply they were just as happy with him as they were with his predecessors. Compare that to other fringe candidates like Ron Pauls who's sizeable donations come solely from the armed forces and private donors. Mitt Romney's donation list is something else though, if that doesn't scream "corporate whore here! Come and get it boys!" then I don't know what does.
For a historian Gingrich doesn't exactly make the most convincing of historical arguments. "They're invented because they were part of the Ottoman Empire and have decided they want their own state"..erm so did the dozens of other nations within the Ottoman Empire
Not to mention how the US was also once a colony of another empire, does that mean the American people are 'invented' too?
I'd love to see him make the argument that all the other nationalities that made up the Ottoman Empire are also invented peoples.
A bit comical that Gingrich comes across as more pro-Israel than the interviewer.
I love Rick Perry. I'd kiss him, just to see the look on his face.
Isn't that the norm for a US politician?
They love Israel more than Israelis do.
Gingrich is a bit nuttier. In fact he's a lot nuttier. He's already said he will name John Bolton as Secretary of State if he wins. He's also best pals with Netenyahu, and has pledged to move the US embassy from Tel Aviv to Jerusalem.
Rick Santorum is uber pro Israel as well, saying in debates that the Israeli government were appeasing Hamas over the prisoner transfer - when you run to the right of the Israelis that is disconcerting.
Rick Santorum is also uber pro-moron, wouldn't take any of his reasonings on any matters seriously, Israel or no Israel.
And yet, he's a more or less legitimate candidate for the presidency from one of the two parties of the most powerful nation on Earth.
It's terrifying.
It's terrifying.
Diane Sawyer is a most annoying cnut...we want to hear the candidates, not her.
$10,000 bet? How humble.
I'm not really that interested in the elections, but I can't believe stupid people like these are running for presidency, let alone of the US!
If you know nothing about Libya and Iran, how the hell are you running for the US presidency??!!
If you know nothing about Libya and Iran, how the hell are you running for the US presidency??!!
Romney just said that he'll always check with Netanyahu before making any comment about Israel....so much for being autonomous eh.
Proportional representation is simple, practical and more democratic, hence it's disapproval in the US - which claims to be democratic but has moved to plutocracy/kleptocracy.
At the end of the Roman republic, things moved to emperors.
Bush 1, Clinton 1, Bush 2 (really 1.1), Clinton 2 , - oops Obama beat her but ...
Seems familiar ..
Watching the debate (I didn't feel like staying up last night), I'm actually really baffled by how easily it comes for even these guys to say that the solution to the financial crisis is less regulation. I mean, I can get their demand for lower taxes. It's stupid, and it doesn't work and never has, but it's the Republican way. And while less regulation is also the Republican way, I would have thought the recent financial crisis drastically changed the view of most Americans on the term "regulation".
Am I wrong?
Edit: Rick Perry just said "and you get rid of the regulatory burden that is killing people".
Am I wrong?
Edit: Rick Perry just said "and you get rid of the regulatory burden that is killing people".
watching the debates, I got the feeling the candidates...and the audience must live in an alternate universe.
pretty sad.
pretty sad.
You’re On, Mitt: Democrats Ecstatic Over Romney’s $10K Bet | TPM2012
Newt To Mitt: You’re Not A Career Politician Because You Lose | TPM2012
looks like it is Newt then.
cant believe it though...
Newt To Mitt: You’re Not A Career Politician Because You Lose | TPM2012
looks like it is Newt then.
cant believe it though...
If it ends up being Newt it will solidify the repub base but most likely cost the independents and moderates. Plus it makes it an easier campaign strategy for Obama. It'll be a lot of, 'a return to the Bush years' stuff. He's probably pretty happy.
I don't think Obama will go after Newt's past.
He will instead contrast his message of standing up for the middle class against trickle down 'piss down your back' economics.
- Status