The General American Politics Thread

[Patticus]

I think the last thing we need to see is some second version of the Tea Party spring up.

[Tornado]

Because the filibuster-proof Senate that Obama had in the first half of his first term is what caused the thing to spring up in the first place. Democrats were able to ramrod whatever they wanted through the Senate as a matter of course (and after the numbers dropped back down to 41/59, through backroom deals). Republicans saw that people were becoming increasingly disenfranchised that they had no say in the proceeds (and not necessarily just Republicans), and as soon as Obamacare got passed that was the rallying point that they needed to get the Tea Party up and going on a national level.

Now imagine a similarly warped group popping up during a presidential election that is completely open.

Edited September 27, 2012 by Tornado

[CrownSlayers Shadow]

It's a damned if you do, damned if you don't situation, isn't it?

On one hand, a filibuster-proof Senate can get whatever the hell it wants to be past (although they'd have almost no check and balance aside from the Supreme Court, and that's if they don't support the decisions going on) but will likely have a second tea party spring up, but on the other hand a Senate that can be filibustered ends up getting roadblocked simply because one group within the senate doesn't like the other side.

Okay, maybe that's a naive standpoint to have. But really, that only goes to show how much of a mess the politics are nowadays.

[turbojet]

It's a damned if you do, damned if you don't situation, isn't it?

On one hand, a filibuster-proof Senate can get whatever the hell it wants to be past (although they'd have almost no check and balance aside from the Supreme Court, and that's if they don't support the decisions going on) but will likely have a second tea party spring up, but on the other hand a Senate that can be filibustered ends up getting roadblocked simply because one group within the senate doesn't like the other side.

Okay, maybe that's a naive standpoint to have. But really, that only goes to show how much of a mess the politics are nowadays.

It probably would have been negated if Obama never suggested Bipartisanship or promised it to begin with. I mean he was really naive back then.

Republicans have something that Democrats don't: Solidarity. They stay the course of stupidaction regardless if said action makes no sense. As soon as there is a moment of trepidation, Democrats start to turn on one another. That is what happened back in 2009.

[CrownSlayers Shadow]

It probably would have been negated if Obama never suggested Bipartisanship or promised it to begin with. I mean he was really naive back then.

Naive, but I think I can understand why he suggested it. He was trying to make Republicans understand (or at the very least believe) he was also on their side trying to fix some of the issues. Hence why, from my understanding, he took on positions that they supported before the Republicans ended up flipflopping and opposing the things they were once in favor of.

If he gets a second term, I seriously hope he wises up and does away with bipartisanship since it didn't exactly work for him no matter how hard he tried.

As soon as there is a moment of trepidation, Democrats start to turn on one another. That is what happened back in 2009.

Fill me in on what happened during that time, because I think that's when I took a break from understanding what was going on in politics.

[Tornado]

The likes of Pelosi and Reid, seeing their newfound filibuster-proof Senate and massive advantage in the House, took hardline stances on everything; completely forgetting that a Democrat from the South wouldn't (and pretty much couldn't) toe the party line over things that Democrats from the far West would want to push. At least not immediately like they wanted to. And if you were a Democrat, and you didn't agree with what those two (especially the former said), you were not a "true" Democrat (and were basically the equivalent to a Nazi, according to Pelosi).

The hardline and ham-fisted approach to everything is why Obama had to go out of his way to placate the Blue Dog Democrats to get Obamacare passed (making it considerably less useful than it originally could have been in the meantime), because those two had gone out of their way to alienate and attack everyone who didn't automatically fall in with the party line as they established it so they could push through whatever those two wanted to push through.

Edited September 28, 2012 by Tornado

[Sapphire]

Who should I vote for?

Vote your class. Interests like gay marriage and abortion shouldn't be a deciding factor. Nothing bugs me more than people who vote for a candidate based on one thing alone, like gun control or abortion.

[Patticus]

If the GOP had never adopted its scorched earth policy of doing everything possible to force Obama out, short of killing baby Pandas live on TV (you know, obstructionism and forcing last year's downgrade of US credit and such), that party would be considerably more electable today, as they would be able to take some of the credit for numerous useful bills being passed which would have directly benefited the country as a whole. Their blind obsession with trying to take out Obama at almost any cost has, it would seem, done them no good whatever.

So now we have the Republicans being pummeled in the polls and looking likely to fare badly in the elections, but even with the Democrats and numerous Romney blunders acting like gunshots into the GOP body politic, they still persist in hanging about screaming bloody murder.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=nEP3xgZi_RU

Dramatization may not have happened.

[CrownSlayers Shadow]

The likes of Pelosi and Reid, seeing their newfound filibuster-proof Senate and massive advantage in the House, took hardline stances on everything; completely forgetting that a Democrat from the South wouldn't (and pretty much couldn't) toe the party line over things that Democrats from the far West would want to push. At least not immediately like they wanted to. And if you were a Democrat, and you didn't agree with what those two (especially the former said), you were not a "true" Democrat (and were basically the equivalent to a Nazi, according to Pelosi).

[Tornado]

More like absolute power being given to someone who was already laughably corrupt.

[Patticus]

The first debate is this coming Tuesday, and the Romney campaign is all too well aware that Obama is going to try to verbally hang, draw and quarter Mitt live on air:

Washington (CNN) – If it wasn't already clear that Mitt Romney and his allies are trying to lower expectations heading into next Wednesday's debate against President Obama in Denver, the campaign is now making it official.

In a memo about the debates distributed to campaign surrogates and provided to CNN on Thursday, longtime Romney adviser Beth Myers outlines a series of reasons why the president is likely to emerge as the winner of the first debate.

Among them:

– President Obama is "widely regarded as one of the most talented political communicators in modern history."

– "This will be the eighth one-on-one presidential debate of his political career. For Mitt Romney, it will be his first."

– "Four years ago, Barack Obama faced John McCain on the debate stage. According to Gallup, voters judged him the winner of each debate by double-digit margins, and their polling showed he won one debate by an astounding 33-point margin."

Myers argues that Obama will "use his ample rhetorical gifts and debating experience to one end: attacking Mitt Romney."

"We fully expect a 90-minute attack ad aimed at tearing down his opponent," she writes in the memo.

Pushing back against emerging conventional wisdom, Myers concludes that the debates will not, in fact, decide the election: "It will be decided by the American people," she says.

Read the full memo below:

http://politicaltick...ions/?hpt=hp_t1

This is all just to manage expectations, of course, I mean if Mitt can get through the first round without embarrassing himself, even landing a blow or two, he will have gone toe-to-toe with the "god of debates" and that'll be regarded as a win.

[turbojet]

Obama is not going to attack Romney for 90 minutes. He is passive aggressive. He'll only do so if Romney dares to challenge him on his record which honestly, it is all Romney has. I'm chuckling because I never thought the Republicans would ever acknowledge that a Harvard Law Valedictorian and professor would have excellent public speaking skills.

[Patticus]

Another good day for Romney on the campaign trail:

(CBS News) Ann Romney's biggest concern if her husband becomes president would be his ability to maintain his "mental well-being," she said in an interview Thursday with KTVN in Reno, Nev.

http://www.cbsnews.c...gest-challenge/

So, President Romney's in the Oval Office, shit hits the fan in Iran or the economy or whathaveyou, everybody's yelling at him and saying he should do this and that, the pressure is immense, expectations are sky high, the whole world expects him to step up, and his wife is concerned that his mental state might be at risk?

I totally feel better about him now.

[The Kid]

If Obama just stands there and stays silent, letting Mitt speak, more than likely he'll put his foot in his mouth.

[turbojet]

I don't know. Mitt did a pretty damn good job at the Clinton Global Initiative. Yes, I did disagree with him and still think that he is an out of touch millionaire who is naive to think that capitalism or lack there of will do anything, but open those countries up for exploitation, but he did pretty good job articulating the fact.

[Patticus]

Here's a fun little article from the Daily Fail (a right-wing joke of a British newspaper) regarding the propaganda DVD I was sent:

Now it's getting REALLY dirty: Outrageous film claiming Obama's mother once posed for pornographic pictures is sent to a MILLION swing voters

The film claims that Mr Obama's real father is left wing poet and Communist party activist, Frank Marshall Davis

100,000 copies of the DVD, containing extraordinary claims, have already been mailed to voters in Ohio with up to three million more planned to go out

As Mitt Romney lags in the polls the material could be potentially damaging for the Obama campaign

It has already won the support of Alabama's Republican Party chairman Bill Armistead

Democrat consultant Steve Murphy called the accusations 'low' and motivated by race and money

More than a million voters in swing states are being sent an anti-Obama documentary that claims the President's mother once posed for pornographic photos wearing bondage gear.

The shocking - and totally unfounded - claims made in the DVD represent a new low in the election dirty tricks war today provoking fury among Democrats and likely to trigger outrage in the White House.

'Dreams From My Real Father', made by a right-wing film-maker who is a long-time critic of Obama, includes images of a woman it claims is the President's mother Ann Dunham clad in leather gloves, boots and a corset posing seductively on a couch.

The film also alleges that Mr Obama's real father is left wing poet poet and Communist party activist Frank Marshall Davis, and that Ms Dunham's marriage was a 'sham' to cover this up.

Accusations: An outrageous video is alleging that President Obama's mother, Ann Dunham, starred in pornographic photo shoots and that his real father is really Communist activist Frank Marshall Davis (right)

Porn star: 'Dreams From My Real Father' the DVD includes images of a woman its maker says is Ann Dunham, clad in leather gloves, boots and a corset posing seductively on a couch.

The extraordinary claims are the latest twist in the debunked 'birther' conspiracy which has raised questions over Mr Obama's past.

But they could have serious consequences as more than one million copies have been mailed to voters in Ohio, a key swing state where Mitt Romney is lagging in the polls.

Some 100,000 copies have also been sent to voters in Nevada and the same number to New Hampshire - with up to three million more still to come.

It has even won the support of Alabama's Republican Party chairman Bill Armistead who has said: 'That (the film) is absolutely frightening. I've seen it. I verified that it is factual, all of it. People can determine.'

Argument: Tea Party members are suspected to be behind the funding of the DVD made by Joel Gilbert and research that went into the website.

But Democrat consultant Steve Murphy said today: 'It's about the lowest thing you can do to accuse, with no evidence, the opposition candidate's mother of being a porn star.

'There are two motives behind this - racism and money. It's a cynical attempt to make some coin and exploit the views of the fringes of mainstream views.'

'Dreams From My Real Father' claims that the President's family history is an elaborate lie.

The real story is that his mother's marriage to Barack Obama Sr was a sham to cover up her affair with Mr Davis, who Mr Obama has referred to as his 'mentor'.

Mr Davis supposedly photographed Ms Dunham whilst she was pregnant with Mr Obama and sold the photos to 1950s magazines with titles like 'Bizarre Life', 'Exotique', and 'Secret Pleasures'.

Claims: A website for the DVD entitled, Dreams from My Real Father, compares photographs of a young Mr Davis with Barack Obama's high school photographs presenting them as similar.

Like father like son? Mr Gilbert's DVD claims that Ann Dunham's marriage to Barack Obama Sr is a 'sham' to cover up her affair with Mr Davis (right).

In one the woman - there is no proof offered that she is Ms Dunham - is posing wearing the corset, gaudy earrings and a large necklace with her hair cut short.

In another photo she sits on a couch staring into the camera and in the other she is putting on an elbow length black leather glove.

In a third she is reclining on the couch with her buttocks clearly visible and in others she is naked apart from a pair of high heels.

In the film, a narrator who is supposed to be Mr Obama says: 'These photos were taken a few weeks before 1960, when mom was about five weeks pregnant with me.

'Frank then sold the photos to men's mail-order catalogues.'

Obama's real mother: 100,000 copies of the video directed by Joe Gilbert were mailed to voters in Ohio claiming that Ann Dunham (front, right)) is not the virtuous woman Mr Obama purports her to be.

The film also claims that Mr Obama’s grandfather was not a furniture salesman but actually a CIA agent.

The 'Barack Obama' narrator says: 'My election was not a sudden political phenomenon.

'It was the culmination of an American socialist movement that my real father, Frank Marshall Davis, nurtured in Chicago and Hawaii, and has been quietly infiltrating the US economy, universities, and media for decades.'

The case: Mr Gilbert has not revealed who funded the video Dreams from My Real Father

According to the film Mr Obama made regular visits to Mr Davis from the age of 10 where he was 'indoctrinated in Marxism during his formative years'.

The movie's director Joel Gilbert said the documentary was the result of two years of research but he is already facing allegations it is a dirty tricks campaign.

Speaking to MailOnline Mr Gilbert claimed that he matched up Ms Dunham to the pornographic pictures by comparing them to her high school photographs at the time.

He and 'other researchers' made the connection but he did not employ a photography expert.

Mr Gilbert said: 'Her teeth matched, her nose matched, everything matched. It's obvious.

'People don’t want to hear this because there is a mass hysteria around President Obama.

'Nobody wants to hear about the gap between what he says and what he wants to do.'

Mr Gilbert also declined to discuss who had paid for the film and would only reveal it was 'privately funded'.

There is already speculation that Tea Party groups may have been behind it.

Mr Gilbert has been unapologetic about his film and said that he investigated the President because he thought he had a 'passion for class struggle that did not fit with his background'.

He has said that he turned up 'convincing evidence that Ann Dunham had an intimate relationship with Mr Davis' including '30 photos of her in various compromising states of nudity'.

Mr Gilbert said: 'Right away I could see that Davis has a striking resemblance to Obama while the Kenyan Obama looked nothing like him.

Target: Since he took office in 2008, Mr Obama has been at the centre of many right wing theories about his background and nationality including one that suggested he might be an alien

Reputation: Joel Gilbert is a Los Angeles based filmmaker known for his rabble-rousing style with films like 'Atomic Jihad: Ahmadinejad's Coming War for Islamic Revival and Obama's Politics of Defeat'

WHO IS JOEL GILBERT?

Joel Gilbert is a Los Angeles based filmmaker known for his rabble-rousing style with films like ‘Atomic Jihad: Ahmadinejad's Coming War for Islamic Revival and Obama's Politics of Defeat’.

Aged 48, he claims to have studied at the London School of Economics and George Washington University before moving into film.

His entertainment company Highway 61 Entertainment has produced 15 films including ‘Farewell Israel: Bush, Iran and the Revolt of Islam’, which is a history of Islamic-Jewish conflict.

He has appeared on right wing radio shows such as the Jerry Doyle Show and is a contributing editor for anti-Obama website familysecuritymatters.org

Mr Obama was born on August 4 in Honolulu before she left.

His long form birth certificate lists a 25-year-old student called 'Barack Hussein Obama' as his dad, referring to his father.

Mr Obama Sr is said to have finished his economics degree in Hawaii then studied at Harvard before moving back to Kenya in 1964, the year he and Ms Dunham divorced.

In a separate development the director of the anti-Obama film 2016, which has become a surprise box office hit, has made lurid claims similar to Mr Gilbert's about Ms Dunham in his book: 'Obama’s America'.

In the book, which reached no.1 on the New York Times bestseller list, Dinesh D'Souza alleges that she sent her son to Hawaii just so she could cheat on his father with Indonesian men.

According to extracts of the book on the Daily Beast: 'Ann's sexual adventuring may seem a little surprising in view of the fact that she was a large woman who kept getting larger.

'Learning about Ann's sexual adventures in Indonesia, I realized how wrong I had been to consider Barack Obama Sr. the playboy … Ann … was the real playgirl, and despite all her reservations about power, she was using her American background and economic and social power to purchase the romantic attention of third-world men.'

Since taking office Mr Obama has been the subject of a number of bizarre claims about his past.

Right wing bloggers have claimed that the 'scar' on his head was evidence he had undergone some kind of secret surgery. They suggested it could be anything from a routine procedure to the work of extra-terrestrials.

The birther movement, which was championed by real estate mogul Donald Trump, said that as the President was not from Hawaii it meant he was not eligible to be in the White House.

When Mr Obama released the long form of his birth certificate the issue finally went away.

The issue of Mr Obama’s religion is another point of attack and despite publicly proclaiming his Christian beliefs, some still believe he is a Muslim.

http://www.dailymail...ing-voters.html

All this kinda makes me wonder what must have gone through the mind of the person making this stuff up.

I would have say that in order to attempt the willful deception of the electorate to such an extent, one must be vehemently opposed to democracy, as democracy only works when people are properly informed. Therefore, the people who produced this stuff must without question be anti-democratic, against freedom and traitors the founding ideals of their country. This makes their message somewhat ironic to say the least.

[-Robin-]

Christian acitivists will kickstart a new political party on Friday.

http://www.christiannewswire.com/news/2517720779.html

There does not exist a reliable political party that purely represents the overall Christian agenda in America. We can neither ignore the overwhelming contrast to our Godly principles of the marriage equality and abortion rights agendas, which the Democrats strongly support, nor can we be oblivious to the arrogant, greedy, unsympathetic Pharisaic practices of the Republicans.

There will be a Press Conference to officially announce the establishment of the New Independent Christian Party on October 5, 2012 at 7:00pm at the Kingdom Empowerment Business Center, 3512 Bladensburg RD, Brentwood, MD 20722.

The November election is poised to leave the Christian base with an extremely bitter taste of misrepresentation and miscalculation of our position and priorities concerning many of the issues in the forefront of American lives today.

The misrepresentation of the biblical teachings and principles to which we profess as Christians, prevent us from continuing to support either the Democratic or the Republican Party candidates.

As the Party of No Compromise, the New Independent Christian Party intends to influence the outcome of American elections and uphold the Godly principles by which America was built and by which Christians believe, live and exist.

The Chair, Bishop Janice Fountaine and Co-chair, Dr. Ralph Martino vow to build a strong political party that will illuminate the Christian voice and bring clarity to the Christian agenda to influence America, impact the world and increase the kingdom.

Edited October 2, 2012 by Hades

[Tornado]

This would be great. That would mean the Republicans can stop dick riding the religious nutjobs and go back to being an actual political party rather than a fringe group writ large.

That being said:

There does not exist a reliable political party that purely represents the overall Christian agenda in America.

[Nepenthe]

A self-professed non-compromising party ignorant of the founding fathers that wants to influence political elections to start enforcing religious principles on the entire population? No thanks. But meh; I'm not significantly worried about it working out and becoming a viable third party. That's nigh-impossible with our voting system in the first place. At most, it might cause some sorely-needed splintering of the nutjobs in the Republican party.

[-Robin-]

I dunno, the NICP could have an advantage by being centered around a major social rallying point that could attract others to its camp. A deeply committed religious party sounds like it's right up Santorum's, Perry's, Bachmann's, and Akin's alleys, and I can imagine non-political persons like Jerry Boykin, Matt Barber, Bryan Fischer, Alveda King, and David Barton finding the party extremely beneficial for them. Santorum and Perry have already left hints that they plan to run in 2016; if this party gets enough spotlight for them to notice it, and they decide to run on that banner, they could bring a huge swath of supporters and voters that were already with them to begin with, and with Fischer's radio show, Alveda King's famous blood relation to MLK, David Barton's relation with Glen Beck, and others, the NICP could be namedropped to other voter blocks it couldn't normally reach.

The NICP could really have the potential to make a name for itself and make an impact later on.

Edited October 2, 2012 by Hades

[Sami]

Christian acitivists will kickstart a new political party on Friday.

http://www.christian...2517720779.html

Considering the number of Christians in the U.S. - At least 80% of the population identify themselves as Christian - I wonder if this "NICP" will gain any ground . Could be interesting if it gains the support of Rick Perry, Rick Santorum, and the like and gets the potential to become the Third Party people predict is coming.

*cough*

[Patticus]

Any third party which threatens to unify church and state, which will certainly siphon off the more extremist elements of the Tea Party and GOP, will have to get past a consequently more moderate Republican party and the Democrats too, along with all their rich backers, and a justice department hell bent on maintaining that separation. In short, unless a revolution occurs, the NCIP will always be a fringe extremist political group without an ice cube's hope in hell of taking over.

[CrownSlayers Shadow]

Yeah, I'd rather keep religion separate from church and state, thank you. Too much potential for extreme factions to hijack things and enact religiously intolerant policies in place.

[LATER BUDDY]

Pretty sure throughout history, religion-ran governments and what not have always ended up piss poor. Kinda wish we'd get pass this idea already. Anyways, I don't think this will get anywhere other than maybe a week or two on Fox News before it crumbles.

[Sami]

Pretty sure throughout history, religion-ran governments and what not have always ended up piss poor. Kinda wish we'd get pass this idea already. Anyways, I don't think this will get anywhere other than maybe a week or two on Fox News before it crumbles.

Governments have essentially been religion-ran up until the ratification of the U.S. Constitution, though. Hell, the British Empire was the world's greatest power at the same time as its persecution of all Christians who didn't conform to the Anglican Church, and that was only a little over two hundred years ago.

Edited October 2, 2012 by Dissident