Jump to content
Sign in to follow this  
Placebo

USA Politics Thread - *No gun debate*

Recommended Posts

Actually there are more than two people running for president.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Oh please, any other primary candidate needs a wonder to become the Republican candidate.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

First off, that attitude is exactly a reason why we are stuck in this god-awful two party swing oligarchy. Second, I said president, not republican candidate.

People whine and moan about the two parties, and then vote and only talk about the two parties because "why bother?" And "why bother" is a fuel to this country's political stupidity.

Ron Paul 2012.

Edited by GRS

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
First off, that attitude is exactly a reason why we are stuck in this god-awful two party swing oligarchy. Second, I said president, not republican candidate.

People whine and moan about the two parties, and then vote and only talk about the two parties because "why bother?" And "why bother" is a fuel to this country's political stupidity.

Ron Paul 2012.

I'm not stuck in this two party "democracy". Just watching the spectacle of the US elections/primaries and of course this is not really democratic to choose between two "extremes". I think the US needs to realize that they need to vote for new parties and need to take a look at other democracies.

People in my country are shocked because the Pirate Party managed to get 13% of the votes in the weekly "Sonntagsfrage". This party didn't even exist in Germany until 2006 and they are well ahead of the 2% Liberal party (which is in the government right now) and the 10% Green Party. And this is a good example of democracy. They started as a protest against the CDU's plans to regulate the internet and if they manage to keep this momentum, they will be in the government in 2013.

Now imagine this happening in the US, oh wait...

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
this is not really democratic to choose between two "extremes". I think the US needs to realize that they need to vote for new parties and need to take a look at other democracies.

The reason the Parties are "extreme" is because our country is extreme -that is, has become toxically polarized and those on the edges make the most noise thereby creating the most energy. People tend to stand less for principle except in the demagogue sorta way "I believe in Freedom and Candidate X HATES freedom....", and will even abandon their position if their enemy party adopts it as well. Anything to stay diametrically opposed to their hated 'Communist/Fascist' opponent. Its a sad state of affairs really.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

The rhetoric may be getting more extreme, but the parties are both still pretty much the same old shit when you get down to it.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
The rhetoric may be getting more extreme, but the parties are both still pretty much the same old shit when you get down to it.

Except one party is promoting christian fascism, and the other is promoting a weaker, more friendly version. They aren't the same. You can find plenty of principled members on the democratic side, on the republican side you've got only tools of big business and power. Even if you are a principled person like ron paul, you're still a tool, where as folks like Feingold & Grayson get kicked out by outside money from corporations. Ron Paul may not vote for goverment subsidies, but whenever they need a tax cut passed for the wealthy, Ron Paul will vote for it... Grayson & Feingold are actively fighting corporate America by asking for higher taxes on corporations and clamping down on wall street , on top of the things that ron paul is concerned about such as the fed & what have you.

in 2009 we had a filibuster proof majority, yet we didn't get ANYTHING done. Yes, the senate wasn't as progressive as the house, but that doesn't mean we couldn't of passed the house's healthcare bill through. It's the leadership that didn't want it.. Obama didn't want it either. The public option was a HUGE step towards convincing the american people that the most wealthy country in the world can't provide healthcare to itself and not just the gitmo prisoners. The health insurance industry just wouldn't let it happen.

There's a lot more gray to the democratic party as you and others seem to portray. I'd vote for Grayson any old day given his accomplishments with the fed and what have you.

The presidential elections are a whole different thing though.. both candidates always support the corporations & wealthy interests, and in that case I'll never vote for Ron Paul or Obama for that matter. I'd love to see Ron Paul win the republican ticket but become president? never. He'll be another tool.. only a movement can stop the permanent stranglehold on foreign policy, and the american people just aren't ready for it.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I stopped reading after the obviously biased first few sentences. I can't take crap like that seriously.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
I stopped reading after the obviously biased first few sentences. I can't take crap like that seriously.

Nowhere did I post a news article, nor did I label my post straight news. I can trust you made a mistake, this level of hostility and disdain for opposing views doesn't seem to be very welcome here.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

as someone has laready said you dont have a real choice in America, just 2 parties are not enough, especially if you can only choice between a far right party and a a right party. moreover in most of the cases the foreign politic is pretty much the same so....

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Except one party is promoting christian fascism' date=' and the other is promoting a weaker, more friendly version. They aren't the same. [/quote']

They're essentially the same. The Republicans aren't really fascist, and the Democrats aren't really socialist. Both are moderately capitalist yet in favor of a stronger Federal government. Both pander to corporations because corporations give them money. There is no way to stop this aside from limiting the government's power. More laws won't help. Waiting for a "principled politician" is futile.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
They're essentially the same. The Republicans aren't really fascist, and the Democrats aren't really socialist. Both are moderately capitalist yet in favor of a stronger Federal government. Both pander to corporations because corporations give them money. There is no way to stop this aside from limiting the government's power. More laws won't help. Waiting for a "principled politician" is futile.

You don't think that the republicans are even remotely fascist? In the abstract the definition of fascism seems to fit them quite well. Again, you say both are the same, but in an abstract way. The democrats are doing the same as far as the economy, civil liberties and foreign policy, but when it comes to equality and social programs they have notable differences. They also do not have multiple television stations broadcasting their talking points and pushing an authoritarian anti-minority message.

We seem to be on a similar page, I just don't think their differences are that small. Both parties represent business interests, it's just one tries to create competition by squeezing through some popular ideas, and doesn't put forth a dangerous, fear mongering message strongly endorsing ideas such as patriotism.

I would also dispute the idea that removing money from politics and setting up a proper incentive structure for representatives wouldn't help.. I'm interested to hear what your reasoning is, as I hear this often from libertarians etc. Limiting goverment is such an abstract idea. I'd like to limit the federal goverment to education, health, justice, and a defensive military.. and you'd like to limit it to what? I'm not an ideologue, I don't care for absolute solutions. I take what works and discard what doesn't. I don't like the Americans with Disabilities Act of 1990, but I also want a single payer system. The two are expansions of goverment, yes, but I prefer to argue policy on their merits. Sometimes goverment works, sometimes it doesn't. I don't subscribe to the idea that goverment is the solution for everything or the inverse. I mean not to suggest you do, I just don't understand what you're trying to get at, and I want to let you know where I'm coming from.

Edited by Fox '09

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

More left wing rhetoric I see...

You seem so surprised that we don't see this evil republican party you are so quick to attack all while constantly defending the left wing. Gee, I wonder whats going on here?

Edited by GRS

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
More left wing rhetoric I see...

You seem so surprised that we don't see this evil republican party you are so quick to attack all while constantly defending the left wing. Gee, I wonder whats going on here?

a discussion that you obviously don't care about.

You can be left learning and not be a democrat you know.

Besides if you actually read my post , I said the democrats aren't even left wing. Perhaps St_dux isn't the one creating the false equivalency - it's you. I'm not going to pretend the two parties are positioned equally on the spectrum, I don't agree with that premise and it's precisely what has been misleading the american people.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

According to you anyways...

No, I do not care much about this discussion since it's a battle of personal viewpoints, something that cannot be argued successfully.

Also, I never really called you a democrat, you do realize that correct? I'm merely pointing out how one sided your posts look. That is something I have to do so often here on this largely liberal leaning forum, as much as it pains me to occasionally defend the right wing.

Edited by GRS

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Right Wing has only itself to blame as they seem hell bent on out-jockeying each other for who is "More Conservative!" then the other guy. When's the last time you heard a Democrat run on the "He's not Liberal enough!" platform? When your pushing social agendas that are to the Right of the Pope -you've gone too far for many Centrists. To me a Centrist is someone who believes in their principled issues stronger than any party loyalty and will praise/blame accordingly. For instance, if your're for the 2nd Amendment and the President does nothing to impinge on that -then say it. If you're for our President getting and giving the kill order on OBL and he does it -say it.

Everything else is just blind loyalty and creates a Confederacy of Dunces.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
For instance, if your're for the 2nd Amendment and the President does nothing to impinge on that -then say it. If you're for our President getting and giving the kill order on OBL and he does it -say it.

Errr.... I'm against the 1st one and for the 2nd one. What am I?

Also, is Mitt Romney any good? I have watched an hour of clips from various speeches and the performance was impressive. Looks like Obama and Romney are evenly matched and it will be a close run election?

Edited by PELHAM

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Errr.... I'm against the 1st one and for the 2nd one. What am I?

A free thinker who believes what they believe -and I respect that irregardless if I agree with you or not. My overall point was just that.

As far as Romney, I don't care for him as he justs strikes me as a guy that thinks he should be President and will do or say anything to make that happen. Of course this could be said of ALL politicians, but seriously he makes me wish McCain was back (minus Palin).

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I'll second that. I really don't like Romney. I'd take him over Obama any day but not because I WANT him to be president.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Hi all

As I said it is not American Republicans who get to choose the GOP's candidate, it is the foreign owners and 1%er party apparatchiks of the GOP who decide who they want as puppet.

Santorum's purpose was to lock in a section of the Imaginary Friend vote.

The foreign owned companies and 1%er agpparatchiks that run the Republican party long ago decided the Republican puppet in chief will be the one who is foolish enough to believe in Imaginary Friend visions that came out of a Top Hat, was heralded by an ethereal presence called, I kid you not, "Moroni", all from the "preachings" of a bonafide snake oil sales man.

Adding another M in the middle of "Moroni" so it is not so obvious what the imaginary friend con trick was about, is realy special!

Any one Dumb enough to believe all that, will be easy to manipulate, hence why he is the chosen candidate of the foreign owned companies and 1%er apparatchiks.

Ron Paul was another one, there to openly pander to the racists and fool the Libertarians in to not voting for the Libertarian candidate! There is a Libertarian Candidate, you know, but enough Libertarians will fooled in to following Ron Paul and will stay and vote for the Bolshevik Republicans; for it to have been a worth while puppet show. And Ron Paul will pocket some "Pats on the back" from the foreign owned companies and 1%er apparatchiks who run the GOP; for preventing the Libertairians from giving their cash and support to the Libertairian candidate, you realy can fool some of the people all the time.

For the Party Apparatchiks that run the GOP, it is all about herding the disparate flocks of voter sheep through the voting machines. That is how the Republican party has worked for decades; the sheep are just too dumb to see it. Baaahh, bah, bah.

Kind Regards walker

Edited by walker
spelling & grammar

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

This is just too funny.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
You don't think that the republicans are even remotely fascist? In the abstract the definition of fascism seems to fit them quite well. Again' date=' you say both are the same, but in an abstract way. The democrats are doing the same as far as the economy, civil liberties and foreign policy, but when it comes to equality and social programs they have notable differences. They also do not have multiple television stations broadcasting their talking points and pushing an authoritarian anti-minority message.

We seem to be on a similar page, I just don't think their differences are that small. Both parties represent business interests, it's just one tries to create competition by squeezing through some popular ideas, and doesn't put forth a dangerous, fear mongering message strongly endorsing ideas such as patriotism.[/quote']

Well I guess it depends on how "remote" you want your definition of fascism to be. Until we have a viable political party that unambiguously comes out against something as fundamental to our legal system as free association, for example, I would say that we don't have any serious fascists running for office. Nazi Germany was fascist. 21st century American Republicans, as over-the-top as their rhetoric may be at times, do not politically resemble Nazis in practice (not even remotely).

As for the differences in how Democrats and Republicans tend to portray themselves in the media/while campaigning, they are just that: differences in rhetoric. Look at Democrats and Republicans in office, especially recently. Barack Obama and George Bush, portrayed in the media as diametrically opposed forces of nature, both pursued (or are pursuing) essentially the exact same political agenda. Bush put in place a massive expansion of Medicare (prescription drug coverage) and tried to fix education at the federal level with No Child Left Behind. Obama has expanded our military presence in the Middle East and even entered into a conflict in Libya that no one was asking for. Above all, both expanded the power of the federal government, a trend that has persisted with few exceptions regardless of which party has been in power since the New Deal.

I would also dispute the idea that removing money from politics and setting up a proper incentive structure for representatives wouldn't help.. I'm interested to hear what your reasoning is' date=' as I hear this often from libertarians etc. Limiting goverment is such an abstract idea. I'd like to limit the federal goverment to education, health, justice, and a defensive military.. and you'd like to limit it to what? I'm not an ideologue, I don't care for absolute solutions. I take what works and discard what doesn't. I don't like the Americans with Disabilities Act of 1990, but I also want a single payer system. The two are expansions of goverment, yes, but I prefer to argue policy on their merits. Sometimes goverment works, sometimes it doesn't. I don't subscribe to the idea that goverment is the solution for everything or the inverse. I mean not to suggest you do, I just don't understand what you're trying to get at, and I want to let you know where I'm coming from.[/quote']

It's not that removing money from politics wouldn't help. It's that removing money from politics is impossible. Power corrupts; absolute power corrupts absolutely: There is no caveat that allows for legislation to change anything about this axiom. If we want to limit the corruption, we need to limit the power. How much should it be limited? In my view, as much as possible without damaging the government's ability to protect essential liberty, i.e., individual freedom from coercion.

Regarding your appeal to pragmatism -- "sometimes government works, sometimes it doesn't" -- how do you define "works"? What are the merits of a single payer healthcare system versus the Americans with Disabilities Act of 1990? The problem with (patently non-ideological) ideologies like pragmatism is that they have no logical foundation, forcing them to rely on implicit assumptions that are often nonsensical.

Hi all

As I said it is not American Republicans who get to choose the GOP's candidate, it is the foreign owners and 1%er party apparatchiks of the GOP who decide who they want as puppet.

Santorum's purpose was to lock in a section of the Imaginary Friend vote.

The foreign owned companies and 1%er agpparatchiks that run the Republican party long ago decided the Republican puppet in chief will be the one who is foolish enough to believe in Imaginary Friend visions that came out of a Top Hat, was heralded by an ethereal presence called, I kid you not, "Moroni", all from the "preachings" of a bonafide snake oil sales man.

Adding another M in the middle of "Moroni" so it is not so obvious what the imaginary friend con trick was about, is realy special!

Any one Dumb enough to believe all that, will be easy to manipulate, hence why he is the chosen candidate of the foreign owned companies and 1%er apparatchiks.

Ron Paul was another one, there to openly pander to the racists and fool the Libertarians in to not voting for the Libertarian candidate! There is a Libertarian Candidate, you know, but enough Libertarians will fooled in to following Ron Paul and will stay and vote for the Bolshevik Republicans; for it to have been a worth while puppet show. And Ron Paul will pocket some "Pats on the back" from the foreign owned companies and 1%er apparatchiks who run the GOP; for preventing the Libertairians from giving their cash and support to the Libertairian candidate, you realy can fool some of the people all the time.

For the Party Apparatchiks that run the GOP, it is all about herding the disparate flocks of voter sheep through the voting machines. That is how the Republican party has worked for decades; the sheep are just too dumb to see it. Baaahh, bah, bah.

Kind Regards walker

5hfYJsQAhl0

Edited by ST_Dux

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

@Walker: could you please explain what "imaginery friend vote" means? Thank you.

@ST_Dux: That video reply wasn't funny or cool if you're wondering.

Edited by batto

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Guest
This topic is now closed to further replies.
Sign in to follow this  

×