US Politics

[Luftwaffles]

 

I'm all for second amendment rights and reduced gun control so candidates can continue shooting themselves in the foot.

[Thorgi Duke of Frisbee]

http://www.nydailynews.com/life-style/health/tomato-sauce-pizza-a-vegetable-congress-gop-healthier-school-lunches-expensive-article-1.978339

 

You heard right, folks. Pizza is now considered a "vegetable" if the shitty pre-packaged food makers put two spoons of tomato paste on it.

 

What a brilliant idea! Instead of feeding our children healthy food, health is "too expensive" for them. Let's just let these lobbyists place more money in our pockets so Pizza Hut, McDonald's and Chik-Fil-A can move further into our food programs! Make your choice, kids; prison food (in Texas, the same food served to prisoners is served to children) or an all-you-can-eat barrage of fatty substances!

 

And not every kid can afford to bring lunch. Way to fight the health initiate, GOP! I'm glad McDonald's is patting you on the back for keeping our children obese.

 

If you'll excuse me, I'll be in the parking lot, breaking into a car so I can smash the car door repeatedly against my head and wonder when our Congress was high-jacked by the greatest fucking troglodytes since the Dark Age.

[Battra92]

I hope I don't step on anyone's toes, but after watching Nancy Pelosi on The Daily Show, it reminds me of why I ever so hate politics. Essentially, she went into a full-on gush of "Democrats are better because Republicans are vile, despicable people!"

 

I don't claim to be a part of any party, to make matters clear. As an outsider, all I see is what looks very similar to "fanboyism." Supposedly, back when I was a child, Democrats and Republicans actually, get this, worked together to improve the country. That's got to be fairy tale because for the last decade I'm pretty sure the two parties have been in an everlasting gladiator duel.

 

The problem is "working together" usually meant Republicans bent over and grabbed the ankles and did what the Democrats wanted. Eventually Republican voters got pissed at this and voted a lot of the establishment morons out. I like a good battle of ideas but the problem is, the goal of every politician is to get re-elected. They are usually successful too because voters seldom take their reps to task.

 

EDIT: I love how I get voted down for pointing out a truth that people don't like. I don't make the rules. Maybe I should've said, "oh everyone should all just come together and smile on your brother and get together and try to love one another."

Edited November 16, 2011 by Battra92

[BrainHurtBoy...2]

Look, guys: Bat just stated his opinion and didn't insult anyone, or behave in a rude manner. Is downvoting someone when you just disagree with their opinion a good way to use the function? Bat's post is just of a differing opinion, and while there's nothing wrong with (in fact, you SHOULD) responding to his post, if you disagree with it, blindly downvoting is a bad practice. Remember, the upvotes and downvotes go towards someone's "Reputation" on the forum. Should Battra have a bad reputation just because he has some beliefs many of us disagree with? I say no.

 

In terms of the conversation, I think both parties have their fair share of drooling morons, and don't like associating myself with either one, but I find myself agreeing with many of the progressive policies Democrats back. However, the current landscape makes real progress of any sort far more difficult than it should be, and I think only radical change will bring about any real movement forward.

I don't much enjoy any of the presidential candidates, but, as of now, Obama seems like the way to go, to me.

[deanb]

Look, guys: Bat just stated his opinion and didn't insult anyone, or behave in a rude manner.

Technically, stating an opinion shouldn't be listed as "a truth"

[Mal]

The problem is "working together" usually meant Republicans bent over and grabbed the ankles and did what the Democrats wanted. Eventually Republican voters got pissed at this and voted a lot of the establishment morons out. I like a good battle of ideas but the problem is, the goal of every politician is to get re-elected. They are usually successful too because voters seldom take their reps to task.

Regular sized font is what I would consider a truth. It is what our political system has became back in I-don't-care-to-even-know times. Now on the voters part... I think it may start to change with so much discussion going on in the Internet, like what we are doing.

 

The rest... is opinions I think. I can see where its coming from but yeah. Politics sucks.

-----

@Duke thing. Well, tomatoe sauce can for sure be consider veggies. Not the kind you need everyday becauses its not GREEN. Eat your greens kids and ADULTS.

And now for my attempt at humor: The veggie bits in cup noodles is now a serving of veggies!

[deanb]

[deanb]

http://www.guardian.co.uk/world/2011/nov/25/mitt-romney-rick-perry-accused-untruths

 

Eeep

[CorgiShinobi]

Hardly unheard of, and you can expect negative campaign ads from the Obama campaign as well. Why? Because negative ads have a greater effect than positive ads on viewers.

 

You can see it from the 1988 presidential election (Bush vs. Dukakis). Dukakis had positive campaign ads that painted him as the proper candidate, essentially "I will" ads. Bush had campaign ads that attacked Dukakis that could almost be described as "criminal reports" because they had "He's said/done" statements. Really, that's what campaign ads have come down to: "Savior of Mankind" and "Criminal Reports."

 

Or a.k.a. "Promises" vs. "Faults"

Edited November 26, 2011 by Atomsk88

[RockyRan]

Hardly unheard of, and you can expect negative campaign ads from the Obama campaign as well. Why? Because negative ads have a greater effect than positive ads on viewers.

 

You can see it from the 1988 presidential election (Bush vs. Dukakis). Dukakis had positive campaign ads that painted him as the proper candidate, essentially "I will" ads. Bush had campaign ads that attacked Dukakis that could almost be described as "criminal reports" because they had "He's said/done" statements. Really, that's what campaign ads have come down to: "Savior of Mankind" and "Criminal Reports."

 

Or a.k.a. "Promises" vs. "Faults"

 

Not sure if I should feel blessed or cursed that I see absolutely zero campaigning here in Texas, whether it's fliers, billboards, commercials, etc. On one hand, I don't have to subject myself to being bombarded with piss-poor/rage inducing rhetoric employed by both sides around election time. On the other hand, Texas operates on such a pitiful mindset of groupthink that there isn't even any active debate (as shitty as it is) going between the candidates in the state at all. If you're a Democrat in Texas you're practically disenfranchised completely. Your vote means fuck all in this state.

[deanb]

Hardly unheard of, and you can expect negative campaign ads from the Obama campaign as well. Why? Because negative ads have a greater effect than positive ads on viewers.

I wasn't Eeeping at the negative campaign, that's fairly standard. I was Eeeping at the use of out of context sound bites, misquotes, etc. That shit wouldn't fly over here (Especially when most of them are ran on the BBC).

Also I find it a little bit hilarious of all the campaigns of British politicians to choose from they picked Margaret Thatcher. Raised unemployment, fucked up housing, riots, needless war. Aren't these the things you guys are currently trying to combat?

[VicariousShaner]

Look, guys: Bat just stated his opinion and didn't insult anyone, or behave in a rude manner.

 

I am pretty sure "moron" is an insult.

[Mister Jack]

This three ring circus going on with the election is making me rather embarrassed to be an American. Actually, with the way things have gotten over here sometimes I'm downright ashamed of it.

[CorgiShinobi]

Of course, Dean. If I remember correctly, defamation laws over there are quite intense. It's why, sometimes, American celebrities will travel to the UK so they can have a trial involving a single comment that was in a legality grey area in the US, but could be considered slander/libel across the pond.

 

I agree with Mister Jack: it's embarrassing. Not the campaign ads mind you, but the Republican candidacy race (debates and all). The Anti-Romney crowd has now moved onto Newt Gingrich. I really didn't see that coming, not in the slightest. We've gone through Bachmann vs. Romney; Perry vs. Romney; Cain vs. Romney; and it's arrived at Newt vs. Romney.

 

If I were a betting man, I'd put money on this, but I'm not.

 

2012 Prediction: Romney is the Republican candidate, though due to a lack of support from the entirety of the GOP, he loses by a dozen or so electoral votes. Obama is president for four more years and thus the continual groaning of his opposition will resume.

 

a.k.a. Think 2004, but swap the parties.

[Mister Jack]

I lean to the left so maybe my opinion on this matter is biased, but I don't think the republicans have a single decent candidate this time around. I didn't vote for John McCain, but I could at least see him as a credible opponent to Barack Obama (though I think taking Sarah Palin as his running mate was a VERY stupid mistake). Really, it's like Atomsk said. In 2004 the democrats had John Kerry, but even I could see that he wasn't a very strong candidate. Now the shoe's on the other foot. I'm not against the notion of ever having a republican president again, but I am very much against the notion of having any of THESE lunatics as the president.

[RockyRan]

I lean to the left so maybe my opinion on this matter is biased, but I don't think the republicans have a single decent candidate this time around. I didn't vote for John McCain, but I could at least see him as a credible opponent to Barack Obama (though I think taking Sarah Palin as his running mate was a VERY stupid mistake). Really, it's like Atomsk said. In 2004 the democrats had John Kerry, but even I could see that he wasn't a very strong candidate. Now the shoe's on the other foot. I'm not against the notion of ever having a republican president again, but I am very much against the notion of having any of THESE lunatics as the president.

 

I don't think that's your "left" speaking, I think even most Republicans would agree the candidates are pretty shitty throughout.

[deanb]

Quick question: Is Obama the only democratic candidate and that's why we've not seen any others, or is it a case of the republican candidates make more entertaining viewing and that's why we're seeing more of them?

[TheMightyEthan]

Generally if the sitting president is eligible for reelection (ie they haven't hit their term limit) they automatically get their party's nomination so there's not a big primary run on that side. So this year Obama gets the Democratic nomination automatically.

[deanb]

Ah reet. Thought it might be like that. (our's are fairly interchangeable. PM can change any time, which of course Tony Blair did. Leading to many to go "but we didn't vote in Gordon Brown". You didn't vote for Tony Blair either you idiots. Unless you're from Sedgefield.)

[Thursday Next]

Ah reet. Thought it might be like that. (our's are fairly interchangeable. PM can change any time, which of course Tony Blair did. Leading to many to go "but we didn't vote in Gordon Brown". You didn't vote for Tony Blair either you idiots. Unless you're from Sedgefield.)

 

Personally, I ticked "Labour" because I wanted Blair in. I would not have voted Labour if Brown had been in charge. Swapping leader is no different to swapping policies imho. In fact, one was a direct cause of the other.

[TheMightyEthan]

HEY HEY! Take it to the UK Politics thread.

[deanb]

[TheMightyEthan]

Stupid two-party system. My choices are: 1) a group of people I think are completely retarded, 2) a group of people who are pretty damn retarded but not quite as bad as the first group, or 3) a group of people I am at least somewhat in agreement with, but have no chance of winning.

[Luftwaffles]

Stupid two-party system. My choices are: 1) a group of people I think are completely retarded, 2) a group of people who are pretty damn retarded but not quite as bad as the first group, or 3) a group of people I am at least somewhat in agreement with, but have no chance of winning.

 

If it's any consolation, even if the group 1 you speak of get elected, they probably won't get anything done because group 2 will be getting in their way, and vice versa.

[RockyRan]

Stupid two-party system. My choices are: 1) a group of people I think are completely retarded, 2) a group of people who are pretty damn retarded but not quite as bad as the first group, or 3) a group of people I am at least somewhat in agreement with, but have no chance of winning.

 

If it's any consolation, even if the group 1 you speak of get elected, they probably won't get anything done because group 2 will be getting in their way, and vice versa.

 

Indeed. Unless one party controls the house, senate AND white house simultaneously the chances of getting anything actually done from either party is pretty slim.