The General American Politics Thread

[turbojet]

So it is that time in American politics where old turbojet wears his blue damn proudly while knowing that his country is in crisis, people aren't happy, and Tiger Woods still can't get his groove back(but some women can attest for his stroke). I, an extremely liberal black man, don't hate the right, but disagrees with them a near habitual basis. That said, what the fuck is wrong with these people?

Usually, when elections come around, people say that the candidates are the same(not the case in 2008, but whatever), or that there really isn't a choice. I usually argue with these people because they are painting it with a broad stroke, but damn, they are right about this. There really isn't a choice.

On one side, we have Barack Hussein Obama. He is probably the best President to handle international relations since Nixon. But sadly, he,being an academic, interprets the Constitution literally and decided not to use his bully pulpit to influence domestic policy until it was too fucking late. He has the charisma, but his benevolence and lack of cunning makes him incompetent when the country is in such dire straights as it is now.

The other side...really, what about the other side? Why did these people decide to run? Did they think that this rec ball where everyone gets to play? They let anyone with a desire to be president run on the GOP. First, we have Herman Cain, One of the ten Black Republicans in this country who has a thing for the number nine and dipping his pen in company ink. He can't even handle scandal well so how in the hell can anyone elect this man to handle international relations? Don't get me started on Ubekestan.

Then we have Rick Perry who has proudly stated that he has put numerous people to death. He doesn't like black people. What? Were you expecting a punchline? The man has a rock in his front lawn called Niggerhead ranch.

Michelle Bachmann. I understand the desire to have a woman run for president and I understand the sexism that a woman may endure to break the perceptions of men, but she has to be competent. Not fucking psycho.

Mitt Romney, who is probably the most sane individual behind Ron Paul, would be best choice, but you guys don't like him because ,"he is too liberal." So you happily look over him for Lou Gingrich, whose only reason for still being in this election is because he funds his own campaign.

Neo-conservatives have effectively lost their minds.

[Nepenthe]

This is what happens when your party becomes hijacked by the loonies in a bid to appeal to an organized group of people that were in turn hijacked by special interests. People were convinced that Obama had no chance this cycle- and I do have my own grievances with him- but screw me, what he's running against is downright hilarious. It's also shameful, the only guy who has a semblance of chance is trailing behind a guy who stalls at public debates and Mr. 999. The GOP is a trainwreck.

[Tornado]

Rick Perry wants to get rid of/consolidate three federal services. Um, Er, and that other one that he can't remember.

Edited November 12, 2011 by Tornado

[Spooky Mulder]

While I personally support the President, the majority of Americans are disappointed by his performance. This election should be a cakewalk for the Republican party and the fact that the best they can come up with is this set of loons should be an absolute embarrassment to them.

As far as I'm concerned, Huntsman is the sanest of the bunch and I think he could easily defeat President Obama if he was nominated, but there's basically zero chance of him getting that far.

Edited November 12, 2011 by Spooky Inferno

[Chili Dawg]

I kinda like Herman Cain. The idea of an old pizza guy who watches Pokemon becoming president has a certain amount of appeal to me.

Beyond that though he's terrible, like the rest of the Republicans. Except Ron Paul, who's insane, but in a way that's kind of awesome.

[novelty]

Where is Ron Paul in all of this? That is the question I want answered.

[Patticus]

Rick Perry wants to get rid of/consolidate three federal services. Um, Er, and that other one that he can't remember.

I'm curious to know what good could possibly come of "getting rid of" the departments of education, energy and commerce.

The G.O.P. doesn't appear to me, as an outsider, to have any credible counters in its various candidates to Barack Obama. Not one has his level of charismatic appeal or good sense, and most (if not all) of them are of the Extremist Christian persuasion, alienating moderates with their fanatical rhetoric, and so beholden to the Fox News/right-wing demagoguery that they'll change their own policies if one of said demagogues disparages them. See: Mitt Romney changing his stance on (IIRC) evolution in direct response to Rush Limbaugh saying "bye bye nomination!" on his show.

The G.O.P.'s current crop of candidates are very dangerous prospects for the presidency, if their anti-science stance is anything to go by. Republican presidents do tend to have a track record of being higher spenders on science and governmenty stuff in general than Democrats (making everything they say about cutting government spending sound/smell like bullshit), but they still worry me, especially as I'm possibly going to be living in the US for a number of years soon and might get to vote in the 2016 elections if all goes well there.

[Emmett L. Brown]

Uncannily enough, that may be the best explanation I've heard for why Obama is failing: That he's not enough of a cold-hearted bastard. Compared to the previous president he's like the second coming of some major deity, but maybe a bastard is what you need to turn a crisis around.

[Stacy]

Yeah these seem like your typical modern day Republican candidates more Jesus, less brain!

Also why do you have to be religious to get in the White House its bullshit, Obama had to start attending chruch and be more religious because it looks good but why can't America have a proper Atheist President?

"Like yeah I don't go to church *puts shades* because I have a country to run".

Bible belt voters care more about someone's God than how their countrie is run.

Michelle Bachmann makes Sarah Palin look like Einstein, only homophobic God fearing Fox News worshipers would vote this moron in!

[TheGerkuman]

Obama already was religious, so I don't think that accusation is fair. I don't believe that an agnostic or atheistic president would necessarily be better for the job either; it should be about whether or not they put their views/ideals before their country.

But I do think that the voting bias against non-christian candidates in the US is unfair. And I can't say I'd consider voting for any of these guys, except maybe Ron Paul. (And that's coming from a lefty)

[Tornado]

I'm curious to know what good could possibly come of "getting rid of" the departments of education, energy and commerce.

I can think of a few (albeit I wouldn't use the words he used to describe it), but the issue is moot because Rick Perry is too stupid to know what they were even if he could remember them.

The G.O.P. doesn't appear to me, as an outsider, to have any credible counters in its various candidates to Barack Obama.

But they do all have the distinct advantage of not being Barack Obama going into election where being Barack Obama is a fairly bad thing to be (deservedly, for reasons turbojet outlined in the OP and many others).

For example, if Mitt Romney ends up being the final guy to go against Obama (which is probably not going to happen because the GOP hates him, but they hated McCain too so it could happen), Obama is fucked.

If Cain can get his shit together and stop being a walking PR screwup (which looks very unlikely), he's another one who has a chance (albeit a far smaller one).

Anyone else, and Obama suffering from a terminal case of "being Obama" or not, and the GOP might as well just give up. And the longer they keep idiots like Bachman, Perry and Gingrich in the running the more they will damage themselves, even though the latter two are basically non-entities in terms of popular support at this point.

Edited November 12, 2011 by Tornado

[Stacy]

Obama already was religious, so I don't think that accusation is fair. I don't believe that an agnostic or atheistic president would necessarily be better for the job either; it should be about whether or not they put their views/ideals before their country.

Yeah my bad but did help it with his election and political career. It just would be nice if their would be a true atheist president which I think would more controvestrial. If it says you have to be religious to be president than I think thats wrong.

I sort of blame Roland Reagan a bit for bringing christianity back to the forefront of politics making Republics more and more Christian-Right over the years. George W. Bush did the same why do you think he got two terms?

[TheGerkuman]

At the moment, getting a non-christian religious person into the white house would be difficult. Though it could happen this time: Mit Romney is a Mormon.

Edit: Yeah, I know the mormons consider themselves to be Christians, but most people don't.

Edited November 12, 2011 by Bonfire Gerkuman

[Tornado]

Because John Kerry had the charisma of a piece of leather and the Bush presidency didn't truly go tits up until the year following the election.

[TheGerkuman]

It was just like when Dole challenged Clinton. He stood no chance.

[Stacy]

At the moment, getting a non-christian religious person into the white house would be difficult. Though it could happen this time: Mit Romney is a Mormon.

Edit: Yeah, I know the mormons consider themselves to be Christians, but most people don't.

Still religous/Christian (well to me they kinda are) but yeah if he got in we would be subjected to this:

Because John Kerry had the charisma of a piece of leather and the Bush presidency didn't truly go tits up until the year following the election.

I still think Bushes biggest supporters were the christian right.

Edited November 12, 2011 by BW199148

[TheGerkuman]

I think war patriotism had most to do with it. Until it became clear that the war caused just as many problems as it solved. Then when Obama proposed change, people leapt at it.

[Stacy]

I think war patriotism had most to do with it. Until it became clear that the war caused just as many problems as it solved. Then when Obama proposed change, people leapt at it.

That's surprising their was no evidence of WMD's even then. Afghanistan was understandable seeing as the Taliban refused to turn over Bin Laden and there was edivence of the Taliban being strong supporters of Al Qaeda.

[Tornado]

Before this turns into another "Was the Iraq War justified" threads, it should be pointed out that the validity of the reasons for invading didn't make any difference until about 2005 or so. That was when the door was kicked in and the entire house came crumbling down (and even Republicans began distancing themselves from Bush).

It had no bearing on the 2004 election, because other than tinges of war wariness starting to set in, that was still when "With Us or Against Us" was still national rhetoric (which is part of the reason Kerry's campaign blew up in his face).

Edited November 12, 2011 by Tornado

[TheGerkuman]

Thanks for clarifying that Tornado, was about to say the same thing myself.

There were many reasons for why Kerry lost, and we're not trying to say the Christian Right has no power in politics because that's BS. So long as poorly-restricted donations exist, they'll still have a lot of pulling power. But they're only about 1/3 of the problem, otherwise there's no way Obama could've got in. (Since he's only 1/2 of the statement, Christian but not leaning to the right; and the direction you lean in means more to them then whether you believe or not because they'll call you a faux-christian if you disagree with any of their moral values)

[Patticus]

But they do all have the distinct advantage of not being Barack Obama going into election where being Barack Obama is a fairly bad thing to be (deservedly, for reasons turbojet outlined in the OP and many others).

I can only imagine that "being Barack Obama" being a bad thing must mainly be down to people blaming everything under the sun on him, including the weather and their own stupidity. That, and a general ignorance of what's actually going on in government and the world at large.

For example, if Mitt Romney ends up being the final guy to go against Obama (which is probably not going to happen because the GOP hates him, but they hated McCain too so it could happen), Obama is fucked.

Why? Mitt seems as retarded as the rest of them, and by all accounts he did a pretty shitty job at generating jobs in his own state (came nearly dead last out of all the states, didn't he?) and as I already said he flip-flopped because of something Rush Limbaugh said on TV.

[Tornado]

I can only imagine that "being Barack Obama" being a bad thing must mainly be down to people blaming everything under the sun on him, including the weather and their own stupidity. That, and a general ignorance of what's actually going on in government and the world at large.

This response shows general ignorance of what is actually going on in America.

Obama had his four years, and after the first one was over and he got a couple of things done he basically stopped doing things altogether. The man had the charisma possibly on the same level of Kennedy and Reagan, but as soon as the makeup of the government became one in which he couldn't steamroll whatever he wanted through he basically stopped trying to use it; waffling about regarding basically all decisions and blaming Republicans for everything that goes wrong when it is mostly his own inability to play the political game that causes all of his problems with them. Of late it has even creeped into his foreign policy

Nevermind that the handful of things that he has accomplished in the past couple of years have generally just managed to be compromises that piss off everyone rather than long-lasting solutions, like the Unemployment Extension/Bush Tax Cuts clusterbomb last year or the budget crisis this year.

Why? Mitt seems as retarded as the rest of them, and by all accounts he did a pretty shitty job at generating jobs in his own state

He's also a fairly moderate-to-left Republican candidate in an election that is, while not quite theirs to lose, still wouldn't be that hard to win; just like how Obama was a moderate Democrat candidate in an election facing the same situation; and unlike your Hilary Clintons or your Michelle Bachmans he doesn't piss people off simply by existing to the point that they will go to the polls simply to vote for the person going against him.

and as I already said he flip-flopped because of something Rush Limbaugh said on TV.

Politicians weasel their way out of things when they feel it might be damaging to them? Is this news?

The only thing that shows is that NeoCons hate him enough to try to fuck him over like they did to McCain in 2000, which means he automatically is more suitable for the job than any of the candidates they do like.

Edited November 12, 2011 by Tornado

[Badnik Zero]

Herman Cain is the future!

[Patticus]

Obama had his four years, and after the first one was over and he got a couple of things done he basically stopped doing things altogether. The man had the charisma possibly on the same level of Kennedy and Reagan, but as soon as the makeup of the government became one in which he couldn't steamroll whatever he wanted through he basically stopped trying to use it; waffling about regarding basically all decisions and blaming Republicans for everything that goes wrong when it is mostly his own inability to play the political game that causes all of his problems with them. Of late it has even creeped into his foreign policy.

It isn't that he can't steamroll anything through, it's that he and, secondary to that, what he wanted to push through, was so hated by the right-wing politicians and TV/radio demagogues, that anything and everything he could ever try to do in office short of switch political party will be opposed by every single fibre of the GOP/right-wing press.

The Republicans must share a significant portion of the blame due to the level of control they have on the house.. I think it's the house of representatives? Anyway, he can't get anything done the way it should be done because the GOP presence there opposes him, not the policies but him and all he wants to do, and the only way he can get things passed is by watering them down and compromising to the point that they're not worth half as much as before, because something done is better than nothing done, and then he's attacked for compromising and shit?

Come on, he's damned no matter what he does isn't he?

Nevermind that the handful of things that he has accomplished in the past couple of years have generally just managed to be compromises that piss off everyone rather than long-lasting solutions, like the Unemployment Extension/Bush Tax Cuts clusterbomb last year or the budget crisis this year.

Perhaps, if the majority-GOP house hadn't opposed everything (or at least a good deal of what was) coming out of the Obama administration for all the wrong reasons, if they had been willing to engage in a proper bi-partisan relationship with the Democrats for the good of the country, if they really wanted the US economy to get back on track ASAP and weren't focused on destroying it purely for the sake of an election victory (they were even trying to get the US' credit rating to be downgraded just so they could fuck him with it in their hateful election ads!), we might've seen less diluted accomplishments, and more positive progress.

There would probably be more positive feelings toward the GOP from the general populace too.

Politicians weasel their way out of things when they feel it might be damaging to them? Is this news?

It is when that person may one day be president. Not one sensible person should want a president whose views on science date back to the Middle Ages.

[Stacy]

Come on, he's damned no matter what he does isn't he?

Reminds me of LBJ towards the end of his presidency.