USA Politics

I'm lacking the depth of knowledge on American politics to get into it on this thread very often but that sounds like a good opportunity to ;) expand my knowledge .:cheers:
 
Wästed The Great said:
I believe it is time again for the Maiden Fans Debate Drinking Game!

Last election, Loosey, Cornfed and I were in the chat, watching debates and drinking... well, Cornfed wasnt, he was at work. Then the convo got weird :)
Click to expand...

Guilty. Jeez, I remember that, seems like ages ago. (I guess four years is a long time.)

Sorry I missed the chat this year, I was at a dinner with SCOTUS Justice Scalia. (That I was listening to him and not Obama kind of tells you all you need to know about my political leanings, doesn't it.) I watched portions of Obama's speech on YouTube, and he confirmed what I already knew -- he's still an excellent orator, but definitely on the defensive.

If we have a chat during the debates, I'll try to join.
 
Of course he's on the defensive. It's a difficult job and he has to endure lots of criticism. An easy target.
But I am getting more and more confident that he'll win.
 
Obama's confident, I think - maybe too confident. He's playing defense because he doesn't think he has to play offense. My outsider's view of the situation (admittedly, I prefer Obama, but that doesn't mean I'd ignore evidence either way) is that Obama is winning. Nate Silver gives Obama a 75% chance of winning, and the post-convention polls are looking very favourable to the president.

However, Romney has a money advantage, so like bearfan said...feel bad for people living in the swing states, because they're about to get slammed hard with ads. I think this is the first election where money isn't going to translate into success, however, because we're going to be oversaturating people with messages. I'm not saying that Romney won't win - I'm saying Romney won't win because he has money.

There will definitely be a chat during the debates, and also one on election night. At least...I'll be there.
 
Call me jaded, but I'm on the brink of thinking that it doesn't matter who gets elected. I don't think either of them can do anything for me. The economy is what it is, and I don't think they can fix that or jobs with a wave of some magic wand. Want to fix the economy? find a way for gas to drop to a $1.50. I'd spend like a crazy man if that happened; I waste hundreds of dollars a month on fuel alone.

Anyway, I'm just thinking that the differences between the two aren't so monumental that I can say 'yeah, I'm voting for him, because of xxxx'. You know? I don't know....

Like I said, jobs, economy.. they are what they are. Health care? it is a total mess, IMO. what is left? No one runs on 'pro life/pro choice'.

Maybe I should pay more attention, but I'm not excited.
 
Congratulations, you've just unravelled the truth about the US political system: the president doesn't have much control over the economy. Both sides make promises they won't be able to keep, and here's why.

1. The control of the House won't change. The House will still be run by Republicans, and this house has proven they refuse to pass legislation unless it fits into their ideas.
2. It is unlikely control of the Senate will flip. Until Akin fucked, it was a coinflip, now far less likely. If it does go 50-50, the VP will have the deciding vote, and that'll likely be Biden.
3. Even with a Republican president and a Republican house and Senate control, the Democrats will filibuster the shit out of everything in the Senate. One thing that I've noticed happening over the past few years is the growth of a Democrat spine (mirrored by the growth of the Democrat spin machine).

So no, the economy isn't going to get fixed until someone can make all the whiny babies in Congress sit down and actually work something out. The blame goes both ways here. Obama said he could do it, and he was wrong, and it was both sides that fucked him up. Pelosi is just as bad, Reid is just as bad, as Boehner and McConnell. Romney can't do it either.
 
A president could, I suppose, do what Ah-nold did in California and refuse to sign the budget unless it had what he wanted -- effectively shutting down the state government for a few days until a compromise could be reached. That would take cojones that I don't think Obama has. No idea whether Romney would be that bold, but once elected he may be more of a risk-taker who tries to force his will on the Congress. Plus, his VP is pushing a small government agenda, so I wouldn't totally put it past them.
 
I just can't see it. Romney is a polls man, and he is really, really driven by what polls say. Polls will never show that it is a good idea to shut down the budget. And we both know what the VP actually does: shit all.
 
And I think that is an extremely notable exception. I don't think Biden has continued the power of the Cheney Vice Presidency at all - he has done some good stuff on Executive initiatives, and I am sure he brings a wealth of knowledge to the Cabinet table, but I don't see Biden doing anything close to what Mr. Cheney did. I don't think Ryan will be able to do much in a hypothetical Romney White House either.
 
If Obama wants me and a lot of other people to vote for him again, then he better be doing something about the bullshit that went on in Egypt and Libya yesterday. Our ambassador is killed and another embassy is overrun by a bunch of thugs, and I'm sure that it's not a coincidence that it occurred on 9/11. Some peoples heads need to be put on a pike. I'm all for peace but these fuckers just seem to understand and/or respect force. Well if they want to go see Allah so bad, I say we as a country should punch their fucking tickets
 
I think this might be an example of what Loosey calls Patriot Theater, but I nevertheless agree. Even the heads on a pike bit, which I don't think you mean literally, but it's very Game of Thronesey and I therefore think it's awesome.

Also, I posted this elsewhere, but I'll reiterate that this has to be the stupidest terrorist attack in history if indeed it was motivated by an obscure fucking YouTube video.
 
Here's my thoughts on the matter:
1) The people who attacked those embassies are not actors on behalf of the individual countries, but people who broke the laws in Egypt, and presumably, the same laws in Libya.
2) Are you seriously advocating the US send in the military to kill a few thousand rioters? What sort of fucked up geopolitic do you subscribe to? Have you seen what happened in Iraq and Afghanistan? Expect Libya, at the very least, to move heaven and earth to find the ones responsible.
3) Most Muslims respect the rule of law, and it's foolish to assume they do not. A few thousand people have rioted in the USA and killed people before too, even US government officials - would you suggest putting heads on pikes there?

Edit: Obama is moving missile-launching destroyers to the coast of Libya, with the intent of locating and destroying the perpetrators of the attack, according to CNN: http://www.cnn.com/2012/09/12/world/africa/libya-us-ambassador-killed/index.html?hpt=hp_t1
 
First off just where in my post did I advocate "the military kill a few thousand rioters". In case you're wondering no where. The people/leaders responsible for these actions are who should pay. Seeing how we've been pretty good with them, drone strikes might be a good way to start. Unfortunately even then some innocent civilians may be killed and that sucks, but hey it ain't like the people who pull these kinds of acts really give a rat's ass about innocent victims. Geopolitically you try and reason and work with people, and I feel that Obama has tried that. He was the one who visted Egypt and apologized for the U.S. and some of it's actions in that region of the world. Caught a lot of shit about here at home but I agreed with him, we have done some stupid shit over there. Unfortunately it's just blowed up in his face and your crazier than hell if you think that Romney and GOP aren't going to play it up that way. I'm sure most Muslims do respect the rule of law, therefore it is THEIR responsiblity to clamp down on the idiots who have hijacked their religion because in case they haven't noticed, the idiot's are the one's getting all the headlines. And if they can't or won't clamp down then by god we should and will. I assume you're old enough to remember what happened on 9/11 and I for one will never forget or ever want to see what I saw that day happen again either here in the U.S., Canada, Europe, or fucking Timbuktu for that matter. These punks are like the bullies we all had to deal with growing up and how did you deal with a bully, you whipped his ass.Yeah we have rioters here and guess what, sometimes rioters get shot and killed. Just like the idiots who rioted in L.A. after the Rodney King verdict. Yeah we're the black community and we're pissed so you know what we're going to do....we're going to loot and burn black owned businesses in the black community. Real fucking smart. Oh yeah the funny part was that I was sitting in Indiana watching tax dollars that I helped pay get used to rebuild everything so if rioters are looking for sympathy from me they can look in the dictionary between shit and syphilis. Same for the assholes in Egypt and Libya.
 
This morning more idiots stormed our embassy in Yemen. Glad to see all the law abiding Muslims keeping control over the idiots. At the very least the soldiers stationed in the embassy should be allowed to defend it.
 
I just watched the movie that provoked it all. Better said: I tried to. I normally don't pay attention to user comments anywhere, but there was one which summed it up perfectly: "I have seen amateur porn with better continuity and production value than this piece of shit." Seriously. What the fuck is this? I have no idea what it is trying to tell me, I don't even know who half the characters are supposed to be. What I could make of it however is that it portrays Muslims as bloodthirsty and savage, and it openly states that Muhammad was a child molester. I really don't know what purpose this movie was made for other than actually provoke Muslims. The reactions coming from it were very obviously provoked, anticipated and desired, for the sole purpose of being able to say, "we told you so, Muslims are bimbos". Disgusting.
 
I'll ask you one thing guys, is Mitt Romney a bellicist ? Because if that is the case, I'll think the events that occurred recently were made to turn American people's heads to Romney for the election in November.

There hasn't been a big war for a while and I'm pretty sure arms dealers would like a war and that would work for the superpowers. As you may know, Turkey is an ally of the US (more like a puppet of US, but let's not put it that way) The relationships between Turkish prime minister and Syrian prime minister were great. They were acting like brothers, actually. Then all of a sudden, Turkish prime minister asked the Syrian prime minister to lay his office down. That has led to a massive tension between Turkey and Syria. Syria has made a Turkish plane crash. I was expecting a war between these nations since Turkey invests their arms from Israel and United States. It may change or carry on with the latest events.

Some people act like the latest events were an answer to US for their "adding fuel to flames" but I seriously doubt it. US will always overpower such events, as seen in Afghanistan. (which may also have started from a farce but let's not go there)

By the way who cares about "regular" people anyway ? The leaders will always try to make money for themselves and won't care about the rest. It may sound plain but the realities themselves are plain after all.
 
Romney has certainly talked tough over Iran.

maidenn.c.indiana, US soldiers are allowed to defend embassies, but it is usually recommended they do so without shooting, because in the Arabic world, every second person owns an AK-47, and that's generally not a situation that you start shooting into.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top