The General American Politics Thread

[Sami]

Ah yes, I remember that part. Baffling indeed!

What I found more confounding was the way Romney pretty much admitted that Medicare would become a voucher system for anyone born after 1957; only future retirees will be screwed over, not current ones. That makes it okay then, does it Mitt? Fuck off does it.

Hopefully Obama will call out Romney on his deceitful claims in the Town Hall debate 12 days from now.

In the meantime, we have the Veep debate next week. Can we expect any "game changers" from that event?

I don't quite recall if it was in this context, but I vaguely remember seeing a Romney ad on YouTube about a week ago about Medicare that ended with "after everything our parents and grandparents have done for us... isn't this the least we can do?"

Really hoping that was in a different context because this is really stupid~

[Nepenthe]

A medical doctor that doesn't believe in embryology... it's like a biologist not believing in evolution.

He's my state rep...

I'm sorry, America. ;~;

But on the bright side, at least he's not the Arkansas State Rep Jon Hubbard, so I'm not in any way responsible for these gems:

....Arkansas Republicans tried to distance themselves Saturday from a Republican state representative's assertion that slavery was a "blessing in disguise" and a Republican state House candidate who advocates deporting all Muslims.

....Hubbard wrote in his 2009 self-published book, "Letters To The Editor: Confessions Of A Frustrated Conservative," that "the institution of slavery that the black race has long believed to be an abomination upon its people may actually have been a blessing in disguise." He also wrote that African-Americans were better off than they would have been had they not been captured and shipped to the United States.

Source

And here's some more gems from his book:

“… one of the stated purposes of school integration was to bring black students up to a level close to that of white students. But, to the great disappointment of everyone, the results of this theory worked exactly in reverse of its intended purpose, and instead of black students rising to the educational levels previously attained by white students, the white students dropped to the level of black students. To make matters worse the lack of discipline and ambition of black students soon became shared by their white classmates, and our educational system has been in a steady decline ever since.” (Page 27)

“Wouldn’t life for blacks in America today be more enjoyable and successful if they would only learn to appreciate the value of a good education?” (Page 184)

Source.

You know what. I'm going to spend some time today trying to find statements from Democratic senators that are equally heinous. You always hear this thing about how both parties are exactly the same. I think it's a crock of bullshit, but if there's any persistent veracity to the claim, then it should be easy to find statements that are similarly awe-inspiring and blatant in the other party.

[Patticus]

Democrats do make their share of stupid comments, it's human nature to say things you might regret saying almost instantly, but it seems to me that Republicans seem to be in the habit of making whole orders of magnitude more and worse comments.

[Nepenthe]

I'm not looking for simply stupid comments. I've found stupid comments from Democrats in my search regarding race, such as claims of post-racial operations from the Kentucky senator Ben Chandler, but I'm not interested in that. I'm interested in much worse thoughts; just plain ol' blatantly racist and offensive stupidity being uttered from the mouths of Democratic senators, and I've even expanded the search to representatives too.

I can't find any. I really thought I had a lead on Bobby Rush from the title of this link, but the fucking author of the article's more offensive.

Whatever. I'll keep looking.

Edit: Yes! I found a nutball! Yes, I realize he's only a nominee and thus doesn't fit the criteria, but it's all I could find so far. ._.

Edited October 7, 2012 by Nepenthe

[CrownSlayers Shadow]

Ya know, after hearing these republicans making such racist comments like slavery being "a blessing in disguise" it kinda brings a lot of fire in my eyes...

I'd say more, but I don't want to stoop to their level.

[SenEDDtor Missile]

Ya know, after hearing these republicans making such racist comments like slavery being "a blessing in disguise" it kinda brings a lot of fire in my eyes...

I'd say more, but I don't want to stoop to their level.

Well, they are doing a good job of cementing my view of them as nothing but racist, homophobic, outdated and out of touch, violence loving, zealous...

I'd go on, but I'm running out of adjectives to use.

Edited October 7, 2012 by Forten Neintiinain

[Rinzler]

Slavery? A blessing in disguise?

How could anyone vote republican after that?

[Nepenthe]

Slavery? A blessing in disguise?

How could anyone vote republican after that?

"He's not representative of the party. He's just a fringe lunatic."

[Autosaver]

Who won?

[Patticus]

No wonder even Bill O'Reilly is predicting the rise of a third party in this country. One the one hand, voters can choose a party comprised increasingly of fringe extremists, detached from reality and with a penchant for violating the constitution and international law, or on the other they can choose the party which can't seem to agree on anything, let alone being united, when they really need to. It's a joke! I just hope that this prospective third party is the Greens, because I'd really hate to see Tea Party 2: Party 'Tarder become seen as a credible third choice for voters.

[Candescence]

No wonder even Bill O'Reilly is predicting the rise of a third party in this country. One the one hand, voters can choose a party comprised increasingly of fringe extremists, detached from reality and with a penchant for violating the constitution and international law, or on the other they can choose the party which can't seem to agree on anything, let alone being united, when they really need to. It's a joke! I just hope that this prospective third party is the Greens, because I'd really hate to see Tea Party 2: Party 'Tarder become seen as a credible third choice for voters.

Edited October 8, 2012 by Masaru Daimon

[SuperStingray]

If the Greens can actually make a firm foothold in Australian politics (they're currently strong enough that the Labor Party need to get their support to actually get bills through, they could very well end up being the third party of Australian politics if not already), then if there's any possible 'third party' that might arise in the US, it could well be them. Well, I hope so, anyway.

If I'm not mistaken, Australia uses a ranked voting system, though. The biggest obstacle toward the US getting a viable third party is that most voters know that a ballot that doesn't go towards the Democratic or Republican party candidate has the same effect as flushing it down the toilet. And even if it wasn't, you'd be splitting the vote away from the whichever of the two dominant parties is closest to your position.

Don't get me wrong, I'm all for a third party, but our system needs to change to let it work. In my opinion, the United States has perhaps the sloppiest democratic infrastructure ever put into practice. In game design, there's something called First Order Optimal Strategy, which describes the move that will give you the best results for the least necessary amount of effort or resources, e.g. a Zerg Rush. They aren't necessarily unbalanced, but in the political playing field these would be things like gerrymandering and Super PACs, things only people with authority or money can control. And the two-party electoral college system basically encourages the use of these by creating such a discrete all-or-nothing system. "You win" and "They lose" are the exact same thing; in other words, it doesn't matter how bad you are as long as you can make the other guy look worse, because however bad both get, it's not like another candidate is going to come in and steal the election, however competent he or she may be. And don't even get me started on the electoral college; the system is in place to prevent urban areas from controlling the election, but come on, New York City, the most populated city in America, has less than a third of a percent of the country's population. Hell, you can't even get passed the top ten most populated cities in America before you fall below a million people per city. It's completely unnecessary, yet as a result gives a disproportionate amount of power to undense areas. A president can actually win the general election with only 22% of the popular vote if he plays the states right. It's the worst and a highly unlikely case, granted, but still the mark of a very crudely made system.

Edited October 8, 2012 by SuperStingray

[Tornado]

Not all Electoral Votes are winner take all, and the system is in place for a couple very important reasons (albeit one of them, the issue of State's Rights in terms of election of the president, is of questionable relevance post-Civil War). It's not exactly the most brilliant system, and it probably was never intended to be permanent (or, rather, it has arguably outlasted one of the things it was supposed to support); but it serves an important purpose and things would be worse if it was dumped without a replacement.

Edited October 8, 2012 by Tornado

[Patticus]

So, it looks like Romney has had a bump in the polls following last Wednesday:

On Monday morning the Gallup organization reported that on three days of calling after the debate, their daily tracking survey finds Romney and Obama tied with 47 percent of the vote each among registered voters nationwide. Gallup showed Obama leading Romney by 5 percentage points (50 percent to 45 percent) in interviews conducted in the three days prior to the debate.

Gallup typically reports findings from their presidential preference question on a seven-day rolling average, and their latest such average gives Obama a 3-point advantage (49 percent to 46 percent).

Most of the polls conducted by other organizations since Wednesday's debate have shown a similar shift in Romney's direction. The HuffPost Pollster tracking model, which combines national and statewide survey data, currently gives Obama just a one and a half percentage point edge nationwide (47.6 percent to 46.0 percent as of this hour, although the estimate will update as new polls become available).

[...]

Gallup is not alone in showing a shift to Romney. More than a dozen polls so far have measured voter preferences since the debate, both nationally and within key swing states. While they often differ on the levels of support for each candidate within individual states, they have shown a roughly similar shift toward Romney (4.5 percentage points on average) as the Gallup poll does nationwide.

More here: http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2012/10/08/presidential-polls_n_1947777.html

I hope that the Obama campaign can reclaim the lost ground soon, I don't like what the polls are saying.

Also, Mitt has a foreign policy speech later today, so that'll be interesting...

[turbojet]

I've been relatively quiet about this election for the past week and I ensure you that I am pissed.

This debate was pitiful. Romney lied about everything he said. When I say everything, I mean everything. But that is not the sad part. The tragic part was Obama. Romney sat there on stage and lied about everything you've done in the past 4 years and you did not do shit to defend your position. You've didn't mention your successes or accolades. You acted you, yourself, believed that you've failed in everything you tried to do. You didn't cut the deficient by half. Sure, Obama, this is true.But you let that rat bastard tell that bold face lie and say that you doubled it? WHAT? So what if you pledged that you would cut in half in your first term and you couldn't. According to the Congressional Budget Office, your new budget plan will do it by 2014. And no, that is not just optimistic thinking. That is a goddamn guarantee. But I don't hear you touting anything positive about your administration. Humility is one thing, but taking it up the ass is another.

You could not beat a guy that makes more blunders than Rosey O'Donnell chasing after an ice cream truck on the free way. A guy that has not stated what his economic plan or just seems delusional about it(You cannot have a tax cut that does not benefit the wealthy and cut the deficient). You could not beat a guy who tans himself to look more Hispanic or says some plutocratic nonsense about the 47%. You could not beat a guy that said that he wanted to fire motherfucking Big Bird. Do you want to fucking win, President? No seriously. This is a legit question. Because you certainly didn't act like it.

I think Kamina said it best when Simon was in a depression. "Listen up, Simon. Never forget. Just believe in yourself. Not in the Simon that I believe in; not in the Kamina that you believe in, either. Believe in the Simon who believes in you." In other words, stop being a lil' bitch. Look, you were too optimistic and you did not meet every goal that you set out to achieve. How can you expect people to care like they did in 2008? How do you expect people to write those songs about you or get out do whatever they can to support you? How can you expect them to believe in you when you don't believe in yourself. I didn't see a winner or loser in the debate. I saw disappointment.

[Patticus]

Well, quite. Perhaps he was simply having an off day? I mean, even presidents have off days, it comes with the territory of being a Human. In any case, the event has done Romney no end of good, and that must be troubling the Obama campaign as much as things like the 47% gaffe and the Libya statement did Romney's campaign team. Biden needs to knock it out of the park this Thursday, he needs to tear down any semblance of intelligence Ryan tries to put up, and Obama needs to do the same twice after to Romney. But even if they do, will the immediate or cumulative effects be able to combat Romney's recent success and renewed confidence? The Domestic debate was supposed to be the biggest ratings draw of the lot, wasn't it?

[CrownSlayers Shadow]

Honestly, I thought that Obama was shocked at the guy bold face lying like that, and that's what resulted in a disappointing debate from him.

Perhaps that's no excuse, but considering how things went I think Obama might be even more prepared come the next debate.

[Autosaver]

We should crack down and regulate Sesame Street, not Wall Street.

[Patticus]

I can only hope that Obama is preparing to combat vigorously (yet gentlemanly) the mix of new and old lies that Romney will no doubt try to spew. He has to go in "loaded for bear," so to speak, as Romney himself did last week.

But can him and Biden winning the rest of the debates reverse the damage done in that debate? Is there any debate people care more about than the domestic policy debate we've just had?

[Stacy]

Romney please ditch that tan, you're fooling nobody.

The only reason why I think Obama may have been lacklustre is he is waiting until Romney uses all of his ammo and is no going to unload on him. But still he could of done way better than that.

I was staying in New Hampshire with my relatives and around the area my relatives live people and peoples businesses had Romney/Ryan sign posts everywhere and all my time being there I only saw one Obama/Biden sign which didn't inspire confidence.

[Conando]

I will honestly lose all faith in this country if Mitt Romney wins the election. But, Obama should take the blame too if he's not going to do a goddamn thing about all of Romney's blatant lies.

[Tornado]

Biden needs to knock it out of the park this Thursday

Oh fuck. That means Romney is going to be president.

Edited October 10, 2012 by Tornado

[Patticus]

Oh fuck. That means Romney is going to be president.

Notsureifserious.jpg

Have you seen the poll bounce for Romney? The only swing state that still seems to be for Obama, and even then on a noticeably slimmer polling majority than before, seems to be Ohio (and where Ohio goes, so goes the nation, as the saying goes). VP debates aren't very important, and they are good in terms entertainment value, but the 2004 one arguably contributed toward Kerry's losing of the election by halting the momentum and putting down the bounce he got from the first debate of that election campaign.

Anyways, apparently Biden and Ryan have been poring over one another's speeches and holding plenty of mock debate sessions, and Biden is reportedly keen on exposing any lies Ryan might spout at the debate. Also, we aren't sure which Ryan will be attending; the bold, unafraid-to-make-unpopular-decision Ryan of this year, pre-VP, or the somewhat more muted and party line-towing Ryan from after the VP nomination. Biden is apparently preparing for both.

[Tornado]

Serious in the sense that relying on Biden to pull his ass out of the fire means he might as well hand the election over to Romney? No.

Serious in the sense that even if Biden magically turns into JFK and completely obliterates Ryan in the debate it won't matter? Yes.

[Patticus]

I just want something to happen that'll reverse the polling trend of the last week or so, 'sall.

Although, after having watched Lifting the Veil, I don't know how much an Obama victory would really mean.