US Elections 2012 Part II: The Conventions, Debates and Election results

[synaesthetic]

Looks like lots of people didn't get the symbolism. Happens all the time, so much so that there's even a trope for it--Misaimed Fandom.

[Solace]

Originally Posted by GundamFan0083

Personally I view the painting as in very poor taste because Obama wasn't crucified by anything other than the man's own words.

I don't see it as poor taste, in fact I find it quite deep. Here's a few levels of social commentary I observed in it:

1. The social pedestal that the office is placed in. People don't just want a figurehead, they want a superman figure who can work miracles. Note the prominence of the Seal behind him.

2. The crossing of religion and state in politics. Obama's religion is a frequent topic of discussion, as well as religion in politics in general. Many of the issues from the last election had a religious factor.

3. The conservative rejection of the President as a transformative figure.

4. The liberal desire to see the President as a transformative figure.

5. Noting the look on his face, it's downcast and burdened. This is not the same guy who went into office in 2008. The job has taken its toll, as it does on all who serve that position. "Heavy is the head that wears the crown", basically.

Just a few things I took from it.

[Keroko]

There's also the illusion that the president is the only man in power and whatever he says has to be done. He isn't. And it isn't. There are hundreds of barriers a president has to overcome to make his plans reality, many of them positioned by people the average person has never heard of, others being simple circumstance. But if he fails to make his plans real because of any of these barriers, he is the one who takes the blame.

[ChainLegacy]

Originally Posted by Keroko

There's also the illusion that the president is the only man in power and whatever he says has to be done. He isn't. And it isn't. There are hundreds of barriers a president has to overcome to make his plans reality, many of them positioned by people the average person has never heard of, others being simple circumstance. But if he fails to make his plans real because of any of these barriers, he is the one who takes the blame.

Indeed, the entire system on both sides is full of toxic filth in my opinion. He's just the figurehead at the top of a dumb vs dumber struggle. Sorry for my cynicism, but I can't help it...

[Lost Cause]

He's more than a figurehead, he's the commander and chief, and his exceutive orders are pretty much law.
And I agree with what you said about both sides being toxic too. There's just too many "special interests groups" and big money organizations at work behind the scenes.
And then again Obama dud say back in 2008 that he would do away with the above mentions groups. Oh well.

[ChainLegacy]

Originally Posted by Lost Cause

He's more the a figurehead, he's the commander and chief, and his exceutive orders are pretty much law.
And I agree with what you said about both sides being toxic too. There's just too many "special interests groups" and big money organizations at work behind the scenes.
And then again Obama dud say back in 2008 that he would do away with the above mentions groups. Oh well.

I'm concerned with the growing power of presidential executive orders as well, but my feelings are you could put Romney or Obama in that position and very little would change - thus, a figurehead. I still think they represent cogs in the system. Playing up on contentious issues that have a low impact on the inner workings of government spending, foreign aggression, and outright corruption merely create the illusion of a gaping difference between the parties. I'm quite liberal socially, but do I see any REAL difference between the two fraud parties in their social stances (on a national level)? No, not really, just a lot of lip service. Luckily local politics is more high-impact on social issues, but while these are important, I would like some actual alternatives to reckless spending and militarism that is the status quo for both parties on a national level.

[Lost Cause]

Originally Posted by ChainLegacy

I'm concerned with the growing power of presidential executive orders as well, but my feelings are you could put Romney or Obama in that position and very little would change - thus, a figurehead. I still think they represent cogs in the system. Playing up on contentious issues that have a low impact on the inner workings of government spending, foreign aggression, and outright corruption merely create the illusion of a gaping difference between the parties. I'm quite liberal socially, but do I see any REAL difference between the two fraud parties in their social stances (on a national level)? No, not really, just a lot of lip service. Luckily local politics is more high-impact on social issues, but while these are important, I would like some actual alternatives to reckless spending and militarism that is the status quo for both parties on a national level.

Agreed! Why is it so important to them to want to play to the public yet spend money like its water and make it more restrictive for us to get around or do what we want.
It is "interesting times" that's for certain!

[Vallen Chaos Valiant]

Originally Posted by ChainLegacy

I'm concerned with the growing power of presidential executive orders as well, but my feelings are you could put Romney or Obama in that position and very little would change - thus, a figurehead.

At this point, the POTUS election isn't directly meant to change the political landscape. Instead it is a way for the two parties to keep score; to keep track of their relative positions on a national level. So it's not as important that Obama won, but that the Democrats won. And not because they got a Democrat into the job, but that they managed to win a national contest.

This is why the talk is all about voting demographic changes. This is the important aspect of the election, as it is a sort of country wide poll used for determining policy by both parties.

I don't know if the GOP is serious about attracting Hispanics in the future. But I do know they wouldn't have even considered it if this election didn't happen.

[ganbaru]

Sheldon Adelson Spent Far More On Campaign Than Previously Known
http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2012/1...n_2223589.html

WASHINGTON -- Casino magnate Sheldon Adelson vowed to spend as much as $100 million to defeat President Barack Obama and help the GOP take control of Congress. According to two GOP fundraisers with close ties to the Las Vegas billionaire, he made good on that promise -- and then some. Adelson ultimately upped the ante, spending closer to a previously unreported $150 million, the fundraisers said.

The guy is supposed to own about 20.5 billions but still, it's insane for a individual to spend so much on a election .

[mangamuscle]

Originally Posted by ganbaru

The guy is supposed to own about 20.5 billions but still, it's insane for a individual to spend so much on a election .

IMO what is insane is that the biggest business for big business is politics. Do not think for a minute he spent so much out of ideological reasons, those kind of people rarely knead vast fortunes. In the end billionaires have their be$t intere$t in mind and for him it was an investment from the which he would have made vast profits if successful.

So forget about funding science and technology, those are long terms investments, the 0.1% which owns the 50% of the wealth wants quick returns, they would not mind increasing their margin to 90%, creating wealth is difficult, getting their paws into others people money is what is in right now >_<

[Ruby Princess]

No, what's insane is that Romney and Obama told me they couldn't show up on my birthday (November 7th) as male strippers because they were 'too busy.' It's like gosh, guys, I know you must be busy with the election just finishing and all, but it's my birthday. Don't be selfish.

[kyp275]

Originally Posted by Ruby Princess

No, what's insane is that Romney and Obama told me they couldn't show up on my birthday (November 7th) as male strippers because they were 'too busy.' It's like gosh, guys, I know you must be busy with the election just finishing and all, but it's my birthday. Don't be selfish.

You probably didn't tip them well enough last time

[Solace]

I was going to make a joke about Chippendales, and then I remembered Chris Farley, then I remembered he used to parody Newt, so here's that video:

YouTube

https://youtu.be/PSqcaAQti4g

Sorry; dynamic content not loaded. Reload?

Such a different world today.

[ganbaru]

Fox News chief’s failed attempt to enlist Petraeus as presidential candidate
http://www.washingtonpost.com/lifest...fd5_print.html

[synaesthetic]

Originally Posted by Lost Cause

Agreed! Why is it so important to them to want to play to the public yet spend money like its water and make it more restrictive for us to get around or do what we want.
It is "interesting times" that's for certain!

http://articles.marketwatch.com/2012...drunken-sailor

Saintess linked this some time ago, but it still bears consideration. Under Obama, federal spending has risen more slowly than it has under any president in the past 60 years.

So the "spending inferno" that the GOP likes to attribute to Obama did not, in fact, happen. Much of the apparent spending was actually the last round of outlays by the Bush administration (i.e. TARP and related outlays).

[Vexx]

Bob Dole may be the last Republican I will ever have voted for ... (watches the party rocketing so far to the right that Alice's Tea Party with the Mad Hatter seems pedestrian in terms of sanity)


http://www.nytimes.com/2012/12/05/us/despite-doles-wish-gop-rejects-disabilities-treaty.html

Bob Dole of Kansas sat slightly slumped in his wheelchair on the Senate floor on Tuesday, staring intently as Senator John Kerry gave his most impassioned speech all year, in defense of a United Nations treaty that would ban discrimination against people with disabilities.

Senators from both parties went to greet Mr. Dole, leaning in to hear his wispy reply, as he sat in support of the treaty, which would require that people with disabilities have the same general rights as those without disabilities. Several members took the unusual step of voting aye while seated at their desks, out of respect for Mr. Dole, 89, a Republican who was the majority leader.
Then, after Mr. Dole’s wife, Elizabeth, rolled him off the floor, Republicans quietly voted down the treaty that the ailing Mr. Dole, recently released from Walter Reed National Military Medical Center, so longed to see passed.

[Ithekro]

They will not sign over any rights to the UN.

[Vexx]

Originally Posted by Ithekro

They will not sign over any rights to the UN.

I think they're confusing "sovereign rights" with "an agreement to behave". Its impossible to avoid the explicit premise on a number of these treaties that the US plans to commit the acts the treaties discuss by not signing.

The US has not ratified any international human rights treaties since December 2002, when it ratified two optional protocols to the Convention on the Rights of the Child. Since that time, important new treaties have been adopted and other long-standing treaties have gained new member states. Unfortunately, the US has too often remained outside these efforts. For example, the US is the only country other than Somalia that has not ratified the Convention on the Rights of the Child, the most widely and rapidly ratified human rights treaty in history. It is one of only seven countries-together with Iran, Nauru, Palau, Somalia, Sudan and Tonga- that has failed to ratify the Convention on the Elimination of All Forms of Discrimination against Women (CEDAW).
These and other key treaties that the US has yet to ratify protect some of the world's most vulnerable populations. They would help, for instance, a woman seeking protection by the police from a threatening spouse; a mentally ill prisoner placed in solitary confinement; and a child who has been trafficked into prostitution. The treaties espouse non-discrimination, due process, and other core values that most American unquestionably support. They are also largely consistent with existing US law and practice.
The failure of the US to join with other nations in taking on international human rights legal obligations has undercut its international leadership on key issues, limiting its influence, its stature, and its credibility in promoting respect for human rights around the world.

Historically, both parties have been a-ok with well-written treaties on human rights. This is more of what I term the "neo-GOP" wackery.

[Ithekro]

That or they don't believe in the backing of said treaties. I seem to remember instances of doubt in such treaties because the committees were headed by Islamic counties that have a stereotypical poor record when if comes to Women or Children.

Stereotypical mind you.

[mangamuscle]

IMO if many of the treaties the USA signed on the 20th century required a new vote, they would not pass in the 21st century. Human rights is no longer in the agenda, the motto now is "shut up and obey", at least that is the feeling I get from (the never ending) news like this:

Cops To Congress: We Need Logs of Americans' Text Messages.