US Elections 2012 Part I: The Primaries/Caucus

[Urzu 7]

Originally Posted by antediluvian

I'm hilariously tempted to vote Romney. He's clearly an agent of chaos, what with his glorious wishy-washy stance on, well, everything. However is he chaotic good or evil? We'd clash were he good.

I don't know if Romney is chaotic evil, but the GOP is chaotic evil. This country could use some more paladins.

[Sugetsu]

Originally Posted by Urzu 7

A couple of weeks ago, someone posted two videos and said it shows the GOP is purposely trying to tank the US economy all in an effort to make Obama a one term president. Is that true? Could anyone post those videos again? Also, how could they hurt the economy? I know they can and I don't doubt they have been, but how do they go about doing that since they aren't the ruling party?

I totally believe it to be true since they have been negatively affecting America and it's citizens since 2009 just so they can attempt making Obama a one-term president.

Link

I hope you find them useful.

[Urzu 7]

Thank you.

[Ithekro]

When was the last president that would be considered lawful good? I doubt any could be classed as a paladin.

[antediluvian]

JFK? Abraham Lincoln? George Washington?

[Vallen Chaos Valiant]

Originally Posted by Ithekro

When was the last president that would be considered lawful good? I doubt any could be classed as a paladin.

Depend on your definition of "lawful". Does it still counts as lawful if you change the laws to suit yourself?

It was pointed out that bankers in Iceland and China get arrested, jailed and/or excecuted because the legal system allows them to be punished. But in America and UK the bankers do the exact same things, and get away with it because they made sure to have had the laws changed first. So they did horribly wrong things, but nothing illegal.

"Lawful" in this case requires a legal authority that works. Politicians are also the same people who write the laws. It is pretty easy to be lawful if it is designed to suit yourself.

[Urzu 7]

George Washington is probably as paladin as they get.

The real question is, who (or what) is a gelatinous cube?

[antediluvian]

Originally Posted by Urzu 7

George Washington is probably as paladin as they get.

The real question is, who (or what) is a gelatinous cube?

Troof. After all, there is a reason we honor him as our country's founding father.

[ganbaru]

Originally Posted by Vexx

The next president will probably be appointing 3-4 Supreme Court justices which could drastically affect life for the next 30 years. Choose carefully

But don't his choice will have to be accepted by congress ? If congress stay about the same, they might try to block anychoice but one a conservative than is already brought by someone .

[mangamuscle]

Originally Posted by Vallen Chaos Valiant

Depend on your definition of "lawful". Does it still counts as lawful if you change the laws to suit yourself?

There is no ifs about this, if you follow the law you ARE lawful, but do not make the mistake of thinking law=good, remember you can be lawful evil (a dictator that changes laws as he sees fit) or chaotic good (an anarchist with the good of the people at heart).

[Lightning_Wing]

Originally Posted by ganbaru

But don't his choice will have to be accepted by congress ? If congress stay about the same, they might try to block anychoice but one a conservative than is already brought by someone .

Yep! This is why the Congressional elections are far more important. Their power, compared to the president, is far greater. People basically follow the presidential elections as a Republican versus Democrat popularity contest. Focus on the House and Senate, they are the ones that really direct the country.

[GDB]

Originally Posted by Lightning_Wing

Yep! This is why the Congressional elections are far more important. Their power, compared to the president, is far greater. People basically follow the presidential elections as a Republican versus Democrat popularity contest. Focus on the House and Senate, they are the ones that really direct the country.

People follow the Presidential election because everyone in the country has a chance to weigh in on it. If you're in state X, what voice do you have in regards to state Y's Senator? If you live 2 inches outside of another district, you have no say in that district's Congressman. There's nothing you can do to change anything outside of buying 436 houses, living in them equally, and even then I don't think you'd be able to vote in them.

[mangamuscle]

Originally Posted by GDB

People follow the Presidential election because everyone in the country has a chance to weigh in on it. If you're in state X, what voice do you have in regards to state Y's Senator? If you live 2 inches outside of another district, you have no say in that district's Congressman. There's nothing you can do to change anything outside of buying 436 houses, living in them equally, and even then I don't think you'd be able to vote in them.

This is made even worst by the fact that congress has no term limits, so the president changes every 4 (maybe 8) years but there is little change at the legislative branch, which is just what lobbysts want, long relationships with legislators to make their agenda feasible in the mid or long term.

[Xellos-_^]

Originally Posted by mangamuscle

This is made even worst by the fact that congress has no term limits, so the president changes every 4 (maybe 8) years but there is little change at the legislative branch, which is just what lobbysts want, long relationships with legislators to make their agenda feasible in the mid or long term.

otoh if there is term limits, there is even more(like they need it) incentives to sell out for a future well paid cushy job at ACME Corporation.

[ganbaru]

Obama leads in three key states amid immigration support: poll
http://www.reuters.com/article/2012/...85Q0YJ20120627

[mangamuscle]

Originally Posted by Xellos-_^

otoh if there is term limits, there is even more(like they need it) incentives to sell out for a future well paid cushy job at ACME Corporation.

Politicians rarely make good businessmen since the prior tend to spend money in dubious projects and the later HAS to produce tangible results in the short term or be fired.

[synaesthetic]

Originally Posted by Vexx

The next president will probably be appointing 3-4 Supreme Court justices which could drastically affect life for the next 30 years. Choose carefully

Indeed. Obama is certainly the lesser evil since his corporate backers (Big Content) can be defeated by the Internet. Romney is a tougher nut to crack, because his corporate backers (the military-industrial complex) cannot be defeated using the Internet.

[Vexx]

Originally Posted by Lightning_Wing

Yep! This is why the Congressional elections are far more important. Their power, compared to the president, is far greater. People basically follow the presidential elections as a Republican versus Democrat popularity contest. Focus on the House and Senate, they are the ones that really direct the country.

And watch VERY carefully for voter suppression tactics (like unethical voter roll purges that make legitimate voters have to re-register or electronic systems that "fail")

[ganbaru]

Romney to seek Washington Post retraction
http://www.politico.com/blogs/media/...st-127441.html

The Washington Post will not retract 'outsourcing' story
http://www.politico.com/blogs/media/...ry-127466.html
So my guess is than the story is based on enough true and probably enough damaging for the republican to ask the Washington Post to retract it.

[Mr. DJ]

Why Working Class People Vote Conservative

Why on Earth would a working-class person ever vote for a conservative candidate? This question has obsessed the American left since Ronald Reagan first captured the votes of so many union members, farmers, urban Catholics and other relatively powerless people – the so-called "Reagan Democrats". Isn't the Republican party the party of big business? Don't the Democrats stand up for the little guy, and try to redistribute the wealth downwards?

Many commentators on the left have embraced some version of the duping hypothesis: the Republican party dupes people into voting against their economic interests by triggering outrage on cultural issues. "Vote for us and we'll protect the American flag!" say the Republicans. "We'll make English the official language of the United States! And most importantly, we'll prevent gay people from threatening your marriage when they … marry! Along the way we'll cut taxes on the rich, cut benefits for the poor, and allow industries to dump their waste into your drinking water, but never mind that. Only we can protect you from gay, Spanish-speaking flag-burners!"

One of the most robust findings in social psychology is that people find ways to believe whatever they want to believe. And the left really want to believe the duping hypothesis. It absolves them from blame and protects them from the need to look in the mirror or figure out what they stand for in the 21st century.

Interesting read.

Associate of mine dropped his .02 on it as well

Alright, I've been working alongside my fellow working class people and living in rural areas and suburbs for a couple decades. Many people vote not for who they are for or what they support so much as what they are against.

They see Democrats and they see a party full of things they don't like. They see a party that has been in charge for 30 years at the state level, passing laws from the city that seem to do nothing but punish the rural areas for not voting Team D. People who seldom venture from the concrete sidewalks gating off the woods from hunting, fishing, hiking and four-wheeling, keeping the public out of public lands, treating it like government property, not the peoples' land. Shutting off the water from the farmers and increasing expenses at every turn, such as the "your cows can't drink from a creek that runs through your property 'cus they might poop in it, so what you need to build at your own expense is.." law.
They see regulations that try to stab the logging industry, who is all "We replant more than we fucking cut and they're still not fucking happy?"
They see a party that seems addicted to spending money on boondoggles and seemingly unimportant things when budgets are already strained. If you're ever in Portland, be sure not to drive on the green boxes and rectangles on the street. Those are for bikes, which are not required to obey any of our laws. The overhead tram, built at taxpayer expense so that the doctors at semi-gov't OHSU can ride up the hill from thier cars to thier offices, the light-rail that every community outside of Portland doesn't want, but legislators try to shove down taxpayers' throats despite harsh opposition, etc. "We know better than you what you need, so shut up and buy it."

They see Team D partisans trying to gut the citizen initiative process, and indeed, the controlling party in this state has, at the local level, an open disdain for the people that they rule over. Public service is not service, it's a career for the accumulation of personal power.
They see the party that hid years of sexual molestation by one of their bright boys, Mayor-then-Governor Goldshmidt, who in turn promoted those who kept his secret. In turn for their promotions, these officials kept his secrets not just until he was out of office, but until they retired and he was way out of state. No official yet has called for him to be prosecuted or called back to face charges, and his portrait hung high in the capitol until his victim died.

They see a party calling for the working class to be disarmed, and they see the government-controlling party calling for the disarming of the law-abiding majority of the citizenry, the "underclass". Taking the disdainful attitude of many of our lawmakers, it comes across as "we have a problem with gang members in the inner city who illegally posses stolen weapons killing each other, so you ignorant rednecks in the country need to law down your guns for your own good". Out here in the PNW, I meet very few of the single-issue abortion voters that irving mentions (I would probably meet more, but I don't go to church, where I suspect I would meet far more) and many of the single-issue gun voters.

At the state and national level, they see a party who fights against voter ID and they think "why would this party want fraudulent votes?" because each fraudulent vote is a vote that steals a legitimate vote by canceling it out. They see this and believe it is tied to Democrat's opposition to keeping our borders closed at the fences and only open at the gates. Common conspiracy theory: that Democrats want illegal aliens to vote because Dems promise gov't assistance to all and the illegals will vote according to the promises.

The working class want the borders closed because they compete for the same jobs. And because while there ARE the "just trying to get across to make a better life for my family and get a job and work hard and be a good citizen" families, there are also gangs and drugs and shit coming across too. What, they ask, are we paying taxes for if it's not going towards keeping my family safe?