The General American Politics Thread

[turbojet]

What exactly do you intend to protest, Turbo? The CIA requesting that it be able to expand its drone fleet? Guantanamo's continued existence? Inaction on Syria? The state's poor handling of Libya? The Patriot Act and NDAA?

The protest in question is called Change The Debate. Focuses on getting the candidates to re-focus political capital on issues not being covered such as disenfranchisement and the overly convoluted process to regain their vote, voter suppression, and etc. I know it means nothing since the candidates already have their talking points and topics. I just want to go to Boca.

[Candescence]

Speaking of gas/petrol, environmental issues were markedly absent from the previous debate, aside from some mentions of clean energy sources from Obama and an argument between him and Romney over who would be able to mine the most coal (or was it oil? Can't remember), and fossil fuel companies are seriously pushing for measures to increase the acquisition and usage of fossil fuels at an unprecedented rate with the idea that it'll improve the economy exponentially, which is a maddeningly stupid idea. I know some people are stubbornly skeptical about climate change, but considering fossil fuels will run out by the end of the century if not within decades, you'd think clean and renewable energy would be the way to go in the long run, and people wouldn't have to pay so damn much for gas. Seriously, it's not rocket science. Why the hell isn't anyone bringing this stuff up?

[Mr. Taxi]

Pretty sure Israel can contest that position in the Middle East, or at the very least its a potentially volatile nation none of the others would dare pick a fight with unless they want to go down with them. Considering how notorious their Mossad is at carrying out assassinations, and how (from what I've heard) they were about to consider going nuclear towards a past threat, Iran has some contest here.

Of course, given how limited my knowledge is here, I wouldn't doubt if I was wrong. Though I'm less worried about Iran's power in the region against a superpower like the US. I'd be more worried about an attack on Iran provoking rising superpowers like China coming to their aid, or creating an international shitstorm that would cause the US a lot more hell than ever.

Either way, I'm pretty sure we'd be smart enough not to be provoking anyone period. Although Rommey's got me worried with his views towards China and Russia. The guy sounds like he's still stuck in the Cold War, or at the very least he'd be willing to start a whole new one.

Israel is, so to speak, too busy with it's own business. That, and it's the westernmost country in that region, whereas Iran is more to the east. That's one of the reasons why Syria is such a powder keg right now - it's neighbour to Israel, but Iran's declared ally. Well, I think I can't discuss this matter too much because I tend to blame Israel for whatever it is, so excuse me, I'll not bother you with my bias. But yes, it's the smartest move not to feed the fire right now.

Which is why entwining economy with foreign policy is such a dangerous thing to do. It's a great reward, but come with a great risk. Well, considering there is some kind of contradiction - USA depends on other countries to recover from the crisis, but at the same time must mind their internal problems - the one to make this move will promptly be accused of "forgetting what's important".

EDIT: Forgive me for this intrusion, though. I'm no USA citizen and I speak as a former student of International Relations. So take every opinion of mine with a grain of salt.

Edited October 21, 2012 by Palas

[Patticus]

The protest in question is called Change The Debate. Focuses on getting the candidates to re-focus political capital on issues not being covered such as disenfranchisement and the overly convoluted process to regain their vote, voter suppression, and etc. I know it means nothing since the candidates already have their talking points and topics. I just want to go to Boca.

I would love to see the candidates go down the debate roads less traveled, but I can't see it happening now or, well, ever. Not unless the people who decide the topics covered in each debate (outside the town hall, at least) want it too, and I can't see that happening either. What could possibly work, however, would be a new debate added to the roster of the four existing ones, focused entirely on those less covered issues.

[Tornado]

Speaking of gas/petrol, environmental issues were markedly absent from the previous debate, aside from some mentions of clean energy sources from Obama and an argument between him and Romney over who would be able to mine the most coal (or was it oil? Can't remember), and fossil fuel companies are seriously pushing for measures to increase the acquisition and usage of fossil fuels at an unprecedented rate with the idea that it'll improve the economy exponentially, which is a maddeningly stupid idea. I know some people are stubbornly skeptical about climate change, but considering fossil fuels will run out by the end of the century if not within decades, you'd think clean and renewable energy would be the way to go in the long run, and people wouldn't have to pay so damn much for gas. Why the hell isn't anyone bringing this stuff up?

Because no one cares. They want gas to be cheap again, and their worry about the environment stops there.

People want to be able to get back to work. People want the government to get out of debt. And an increasing amount of them (though for generally poorly defined reasoning spoon-fed to them by either Obama or Romney) want government spending to go back down to some vaguely defined lower level. Anything else at this point for this election is pretty much irrelevant (the only exception to this is probably Middle East matters); and considering how badly the renewable energy grants have been painted in the media (justly or not) since Obama started them a few years ago, the closest even Obama will come to showing support for an environmental platform is defending himself when Romney attacks him over past action.

Edited October 21, 2012 by Tornado

[SuperStingray]

People want to be able to get back to work. People want the government to get out of debt. And an increasing amount of them (though for generally poorly defined reasoning spoon-fed to them by either Obama or Romney) want government spending to go back down to some vaguely defined lower level. Anything else at this point for this election is pretty much irrelevant (the only exception to this is probably Middle East matters);

I don't think it's that simple. Sure, those are the most central points, but there are plenty of other areas that matter to a large part of the electorate, i.e. reproductive rights and the US health care system.

[Patticus]

Reproductive rights have been an increasingly prominent issue ever since Roe vs. Wade, and they do matter - particularly to female voters.

I'm worried about tonight's debate. Someone reassure me.

[DarkDefeater]

I know this forum is highly liberal, perhaps as liberal as Democratic Underground. But is there anyone who is actually supporting Romney?

[PSI Wind]

I know this forum is highly liberal, perhaps as liberal as Democratic Underground. But is there anyone who is actually supporting Romney?

How is it Liberal just because we want Obama and not Romney? Obama isn't perfect, but Romney's a total asshole, sexist, idiot.

[-Robin-]

I'd be a lot more tolerable of Romney if he just stuck to his original guns instead of switching positions on issues as if they were flavors of the week. The man flip-flopped his stance on gay marriage twice in 5 days last week. He has little sense of conviction.

As it stands, it's not so much Mitt Romney that's challenging Obama. Rather, it's "the GOP's comprehensive avatar and puppet" that's campaigning. If Romney decided to actually be Romney, I'd look at him in a much better light.

Edited October 22, 2012 by Joshua

[a bad poster]

IMO Romney's idea that healthcare in the US should be a competitive market indicates that he doesn't quite understand how the system is supposed to work in the first place, and that's one of many reasons why I'll never support the guy

Just saying

[Tornado]

I don't think it's that simple. Sure, those are the most central points, but there are plenty of other areas that matter to a large part of the electorate, i.e. reproductive rights and the US health care system.

The former is something that neither candidate is making a serious part of their platform (no matter how much pandering Romney would do, because no matter how he tries to paint himself as one he isn't a NeoCon), and the latter is related to the government spending more than not.

[Autosaver]

Voters are going to like that, and as most voters seem to think the President controls the price of gas (certainly they blame him whenever the price shoots up), this might have a small favorable impact on Obama's poll numbers from here on out.

Actually, I've seen it where all the bad goes toward Obama and all the good goes toward someone else.

Death of Osama Bin Laden? Bush!

Lower Gas Prices? DEFINITELY MITT ROMNEY

[Patticus]

Actually, I've seen it where all the bad goes toward Obama and all the good goes toward someone else.

Death of Osama Bin Laden? Bush!

Lower Gas Prices? DEFINITELY MITT ROMNEY

>American logic

I wonder if Obama is going to set the record straight regarding Libya tonight? As in, telling the country that they don't know what actually happened that night, thanks to many conflicting and confused eyewitness reports, investigations which are ongoing and don't produce results overnight (a terribly inconvenient thing during an election campaign) and the fact that as they learn more, the official version of events (relayed transparently every time something new has come up) will inevitably be updated and clarified. Oh and the fact that there has been no evidence gathered so far which implicates Al Qaida. If he does that, might he deal Romney a public blow? Romney, like his Republican colleagues, almost certainly remains utterly fixated on the erroneous idea that it was a coordinated, planned Al Qaida assault, despite the fact that they have no proof.

Edit: Romney's brief guido-esque charm offensive in Latino Land might have come to nothing, according to this just-released poll:

Obama leads Romney 70 percent to 25 percent among likely Latino voters (and 69 percent to 23 percent among registered voters), a slight uptick for Romney from the 70 percent to 25 percent lead the president held a month ago.

http://firstread.nbcnews.com/_news/2012/10/22/14617456-nbcwsj-poll-obama-leads-by-45-points-with-latinos?lite

Edited October 22, 2012 by Patticus

[Autosaver]

Patticus

GET IN HERE RIGHT NOW

[Dark Qiviut]

If you're watching CNN, there's been a huge contrast of opinions between not just the President and Romney, but the undecideds, too. The women are generally in favor of Obama, while the men are generally in favor of Romney.

Edited October 23, 2012 by Dark Qiviut

[Autosaver]

[Linkabel]

Not going to lie that zinger made me laugh a little

[DarkDefeater]

I had the opposite reaction. That line made the president seem overly insulting and petty.

[Patticus]

Patticus

GET IN HERE RIGHT NOW

I was watching it on TV with the wife, eating scalloped potatoes and roast chicken. Good times.

I had the opposite reaction. That line made the president seem overly insulting and petty.

Compared to Romney/Ryan's campaign of lies, and the Republicans' record over the last four years of painting Obama as a Muslim Communist Nazi from Kenya with a fake real birth certificate, 'insulting and petty' seems to me to be an incredibly mild complaint to make about the President.

[Kevin]

"We have less horses and bayonets now. We have these things called aircraft carriers now"

That way Obama delivered that line made me laugh so hard.

Edit: It sure didn't take long for that line to become a meme. Oh late night talk shows, I cannot wait for your material tomorrow!

Edited October 23, 2012 by Kevin

[Patticus]

That was second only to this line from Obama:

"The 1980's called, and they want their foreign policy back... and the 1950's called, and they want their social policies back."

I didn't think it was possible, but Obama just got a bajillion times cooler. Fucking love that man. If Mitt wins this election, I want 8 years of Obama afterwards, just to take away that nasty aftertaste you get with Republican presidents.

[Badnik Mechanic]

The word is... LOL!

...But he does make a really good point. You don't nessesarilly base your military on size so much as you base it on tactical management.

[Stritix]

Who won?

[KHCast]

Who won?

No one. No one won. No one will win. Everyone will lose no matter what. But seriously though, it hasn't been decided yet. Edited October 23, 2012 by Riku