US Elections 2012 Part I: The Primaries/Caucus

[speedyexpress48]

Part of the problem is that people think everything can be done in 4 years. I'm sorry, but that is impossible for any president. Sure Obama isn't my first choice among the Democrats, but hey...he did some things correctly. He did make too many promises, but it's the campaign trail...so that is honestly unavoidable.

[Xellos-_^]

i agree with you both but it is fun rubbing the it in the face of the all those Obama supporter who keep telling me that real change is (was) on the way and that Obama wasn't just another politician.

[Vallen Chaos Valiant]

Originally Posted by Xellos-_^

i agree with you both but it is fun rubbing the it in the face of the all those Obama supporter who keep telling me that real change is (was) on the way and that Obama wasn't just another politician.

"Just another politician" is actually a rather comforting image these days.

Compared to Santorum, who is FAR from your average politician. Whether it is a good or a bad thing is up to you. All I can tell is that Santorum genuinely believed every word he has said, and that the consequences of him in power would not be pretty.

As for Romney... I guess he is very much a politician. But he almost seems like a PARODY of one. Most POTUS candidates are rich. This includes Obama of course. But Romney acts and talks like some caricature. It sounds like he genuinely only knows about poverty from reading it in a textbook somewhere.

I do have to make a point that I don't mind rich people running for office. It's just that Romney has trouble realising there are certain things you don't say to the Middle Class. He seems to have issues in speaking Common Tongue, but talk instead like he is conversing with fellow millionaires.

[Xellos-_^]

Originally Posted by Vallen Chaos Valiant

"Just another politician" is actually a rather comforting image these days.

Compared to Santorum, who is FAR from your average politician. Whether it is a good or a bad thing is up to you. All I can tell is that Santorum genuinely believed every word he has said, and that the consequences of him in power would not be pretty.

As for Romney... I guess he is very much a politician. But he almost seems like a PARODY of one. Most POTUS candidates are rich. This includes Obama of course. But Romney acts and talks like some caricature. It sounds like he genuinely only knows about poverty from reading it in a textbook somewhere.

I do have to make a point that I don't mind rich people running for office. It's just that Romney has trouble realising there are certain things you don't say to the Middle Class. He seems to have issues in speaking Common Tongue, but talk instead like he is conversing with fellow millionaires.

Romney suffers form the Foot-in-the-Mouth disease.

[Vallen Chaos Valiant]

Originally Posted by Xellos-_^

Romney suffers form the Foot-in-the-Mouth disease.

In many ways, Romney merely spoke the language of the privileged. He isn't trying to show off how rich he is; he merely doesn't know when to stop acting like he is talking to Donald Trump.

What's more worrying, is how little he actually KNOW about the middle class. Even Kings and Emperors have been know to travel incognito in order to understand the people they rule over. I think Romney do want to care about the lower classes; he just knows next to nothing about how to begin.

[Solace]

Originally Posted by Xellos-_^

Romney suffers form the Foot-in-the-Mouth disease.

Romney suffers from "lack of a viable alternative" disease. He's clearly uncomfortable when he has to emulate a Republican, but he's no Democrat either. It's more of a reflection of how extreme the party has become than a reflection on him. He is certainly out of touch, but I think if he was given the opportunity to "come down from the mountain" he would really connect with people. He's a much more personable guy than the other candidates. Unfortunately he can't do that, and he's been forced further and further right along with the rest of the party, because none of them are willing to put on the brakes and stop before they go over the cliff.

Romney's salvation will only come if he rejects all of this nonsense and starts saying things he actually believes in, devoting the time to explain what isn't understood while also trying to understand what he himself is missing.

But who am I kidding? Any candidate that could do that wouldn't be in politics. If they were, they'd never see a second term.....if they finished the first.

[Vexx]

When I think of Romney, I think of the character Robert Redford played long ago in "The Candidate". Romney wants to be President.... but I don't think he knows WHY he wants to be president, a poster child of the "empty suit" politician.

But what Solace says ditto --- the GOP has moved *SO*FAR*RIGHT you need special goggles to see it even if you're an old-guard Republican. Romney is screwed in that to win the nomination he has to be pretend to be something utterly crazy and pray that the moderates/undecided/clueless don't remember in the fall.

[GundamFan0083]

Originally Posted by solomon

@GundamFan

While I don't deny that Obama is no where NEAR the golden boy his supporters think he is nor is he above reproach, I do think people piss on his presidency a little too much.

I'm fair about it though since I piss on pretty much most of the Presidencies from Woodrow Wilson onwards.
Only a few (Eisenhower, JFK, and a couple of others) escape my disdain because the majority did things that undermined the constitution for the benefit of the corporations.
Both the D's and the R's are guilty of this and that's why I have such angst against them.
Obama is no different than Bush IMO, and Bush was a continuation of Clinton, and Clinton continued Bush Senior's policies, and so on down the line to Wilson.
The whole concept of "Imperial America" sickens me.

Obama's early time was dominated by the bail out, one that was unpopular of course, but frankly unavoidable. A more interesting idea I heard ffrom some economists would be that the government should have taken hold of the banks and broke them up, but THAT would have been an actual grab of ownership and could be construed as socialist (although I am pretty sure something like that happened with Standard Oil a zillion years ago).

I keep hearing how the bail out was unavoidable, why?
Why not let the megabanks go down?
They let Lehman Brothers go down, why not Goldman Sacks?
Or Chase?
Or J.P. Morgan?
We don't need them, we've been taught we do, but in reality we don't.
So no, I do not buy into the fallacy that the bailouts were necessary.
Like you posted, a break up of the banks would have been effective.
And why hasn't Obama put back the Glass Steagall Act's safeguards?
FDR supported that law and pushed for it, why doesn't Obama?
It was Clinton and Neutered Gingrich that repealed the last vestiges of that law, why hasn't Obama, and hell the GOP, put it back in place?
As the old saying goes, "something is rotten in Denmark."

Also despite a big portion of Dems in the legislature, a lot of those dems were from non-traditionally democratic voting areas if I recall correctly. Particularly in the south and west. Despite them being Democrat they aren't as left leaning as Obama would have been as a legislator representing Chicago/Illinois. And the president can't just mandate that his party get in line with EVERYTHING he suggests.

They were impotent and allowed themselves to go against the will of their constituencies.
The United States is a right-of-center country, and what the Democrats did (for the USA) was "far-left" compared to what the "right-wing" is in our country.
We're so far to the right as a country that Fascism is left-wing.

I do agree that by and large on average, Americans are not willing to support left-leaning policies to the extent that they are in Canada or Western Europe. There are many reasons for that, but history is a major one and that will be a difficult challenge to overcome for left wingers.

I wonder about your use of the term "far-left" though. Any "socialist" policies that Europe practices are generally watered down from the Marxist nightmares that opponents generally drum up.

In the context of the United States, Europe is far-left, and that is the context I was using the term since this thread is about US Election politics.

I think I agree with Vexx in that at the national level, on average "left-wing" politics and platforms are pretty weak in influence right now. Call it the Third-Way influence if you want. But I think Vexx was right about the political range in the country being "moderately center to hard right".

After all some of the watered down or Social-Democratic policies in Europe are laughed at by Hard core socialists (the ones who advocate nationalizaiton of industries and such), I don't think Social-Democrats are necessarily for anything so BIG TIME STATIST. But the general average of USA has shifted so rightward that merely discussing programs of that (actual) left-wing nature is laughable if not demonized.

In reality, YES, you are correct.
In the mindset of the US citizen, NO, you know how we think.
GOD, GUTS, GUNS!

Anything that challenges that is pinko-commie.
Now I do know what actual socialism and communism are all about and I don't think anyone here wants to live in that.
I visited the fallen USSR in 1992 while in the USAF, well what was Eastern Germany, and I don't ever want to live that way...ever.

Then again, the country DOES get what it votes for so, if people like conservative government then that's what they like. After all the country was founded on the premise of being autonomus from centralized powers (the crown) and set up it's government in that ethos, so it's only natural.

I don't have a hard on for every single thing left wing governments abroad do, I think that unions have too much power in some places like France for example (they seem to strike for any little old thing). But I also don't believe in poo pooing any ideas from such governments as dead on arrival because it's "not american".

Such as the general outlook on healthcare reform, if we got the same level of care we do now, but with primarily public expenditures AND it cost less yearly, then WHY NOT do it. It's a lateral move and would eat up less GDP.

I don't advocate a public to solution to EVERYTHING in the least, but if we could cut down our healthcare costs to be comparable to other countries and keep high quality while having most people covered, i dunno, just seems like a no brainer to me if you want to save money AND keep the populace healthy. It's just cause it's non-traditional and would eat in to some benefactors profits, that's the main reasons I see it not coming to America.

I agree with you in part.
I think a healthcare tax, plus forcing all health insurance companies to go non-profit, would help bring down the costs.
And then the creation of a medicare healthcare program for those making under $20,000/year individual, or $40,000/year family should be eligible for government healthcare paid for via the tax.
Why should the middle class or rich be forced into a mandatory system?
They shouldn't be.
But the poor who cannot afford care need a system to help them afford it or get the care they need and that's where a system paid for via a graduated tax paid by the middle class and rich (which IS constitutional) would come into play.
That however would also mean the insurance companies would not make the huge profits they make now...poor babies.

Originally Posted by Vallen Chaos Valiant

"Just another politician" is actually a rather comforting image these days.

Compared to Santorum, who is FAR from your average politician. Whether it is a good or a bad thing is up to you. All I can tell is that Santorum genuinely believed every word he has said, and that the consequences of him in power would not be pretty.

Don't EVEN get me started on Pope Rick the first!
Santorum is a nightmare wrapped in a cloud of terror.

[solomon]

Well Ok, I see where you are coming from on many points.

Where you get to the point of "undermining the constitution for sake of corporations" is debatable though. After all I am sure the Supreme Court right wingers could construe some constitutionally based argument about why they allow corporations to have unlimited spending power in election campaigns.

The mandate is a legitmate beef as well as a practical one. Although I believe the mandate was that everyone HAVE health insurance not necessarily government insurance.

It just bugs me, I don't mind conservative policies at all, but we are SO conservative and narrow minded we don't have a legitimate conversation.

There was a good opinion piece in the Washington Post by (apparently) a Federal Worker, who disdains all the shit federal public workers are getting from republicans. This is a big deal here in DC as Federal related work is a big influence in our economy, a lot of which is very beneficial to the welfare of our country, yet we are denigrated as a bunch of lazy spongers who get way more than their worth.

[Vallen Chaos Valiant]

Originally Posted by GundamFan0083

Don't EVEN get me started on Pope Rick the first!
Santorum is a nightmare wrapped in a cloud of terror.

I got an interesting opinion of Santorum from an article that I assume, was written by a GOP supporter:

Bottom line: Santorum is a good man. He’s just a good man in the wrong century.

If Santorum is a malicious person, if he wants to lie to people, he would have been far better at concealing his beliefs. But Santorum really doesn't see his own views as anything to be ashamed of. So you see Santorum as he truly is.

Both Santorum and Romney can't help being who they really are. So at least the GOP voters should have a pretty good idea which one if any they support in the Primary.

[GundamFan0083]

Originally Posted by solomon

Well Ok, I see where you are coming from on many points.

Where you get to the point of "undermining the constitution for sake of corporations" is debatable though. After all I am sure the Supreme Court right wingers could construe some constitutionally based argument about why they allow corporations to have unlimited spending power in election campaigns.

Oh, I'm sure you're right.
The SCOTUS has handed down some real doozies over the years.
Like this one for example:
Wickard v Fiburn

There was a good opinion piece in the Washington Post by (apparently) a Federal Worker, who disdains all the shit federal public workers are getting from republicans. This is a big deal here in DC as Federal related work is a big influence in our economy, a lot of which is very beneficial to the welfare of our country, yet we are denigrated as a bunch of lazy spongers who get way more than their worth.

We agree.

Originally Posted by Vallen Chaos Valiant

I got an interesting opinion of Santorum from an article that I assume, was written by a GOP supporter:


If Santorum is a malicious person, if he wants to lie to people, he would have been far better at concealing his beliefs. But Santorum really doesn't see his own views as anything to be ashamed of. So you see Santorum as he truly is.

Both Santorum and Romney can't help being who they really are. So at least the GOP voters should have a pretty good idea which one if any they support in the Primary.

Rick Santorum is like Captain Stern and the conservative media are akin to Hanover Fist.
They know Santorum is dirty, but they're gonna push the "he's a good guy" all the same.

[solomon]

On the one hand I can't argue with Santorum standing up with what he believes in, the GOP supporter is right he'd be a liar if he tried to conceal that.

The problem is WHAT he believes in.

Like what is this crock about Obama being a snob for being a college graduate. Some of the biggest conservative influences on policy GASP went to college. Plus you CANNOT make a decent living in America without such an education......I just don't get it.

[Vallen Chaos Valiant]

Originally Posted by solomon

On the one hand I can't argue with Santorum standing up with what he believes in, the GOP supporter is right he'd be a liar if he tried to conceal that.

The problem is WHAT he believes in.

Like what is this crock about Obama being a snob for being a college graduate. Some of the biggest conservative influences on policy GASP went to college. Plus you CANNOT make a decent living in America without such an education......I just don't get it.

One of the supposed reasons Santorum gave for that position, is that, according to his data, 60% of people who held religious beliefs ended up faithless after Higher Education.

If that's what he believes, then I see his point. For Santorum, faith is more important than being able to get a decent paying job. I of course don't agree with that conclusion, but I can't blame him for having different priorities.

[Ledgem]

Originally Posted by Vallen Chaos Valiant

Compared to Santorum, who is FAR from your average politician. Whether it is a good or a bad thing is up to you. All I can tell is that Santorum genuinely believed every word he has said, and that the consequences of him in power would not be pretty.

Let's see... wants to tell me how to live my life, thinks that the Constitution is just a rag that should be secondary to something else (in Santorum's case, the Bible), says some crazy garbage to rally the base and then backpedals when he's called on it... far from the average politician, huh?

[Vallen Chaos Valiant]

Originally Posted by Ledgem

Let's see... wants to tell me how to live my life, thinks that the Constitution is just a rag that should be secondary to something else (in Santorum's case, the Bible), says some crazy garbage to rally the base and then backpedals when he's called on it... far from the average politician, huh?

Santorum hasn't back-pedalled YET. He still might, but not until he secured the nomination.

And yes, I have no problem believing that Santorum consider the Bible a higher authority than the Constitution.

[Xagzan]

Originally Posted by solomon

On the one hand I can't argue with Santorum standing up with what he believes in, the GOP supporter is right he'd be a liar if he tried to conceal that.

The problem is WHAT he believes in.

Like what is this crock about Obama being a snob for being a college graduate. Some of the biggest conservative influences on policy GASP went to college. Plus you CANNOT make a decent living in America without such an education......I just don't get it.

Especially since Santorum has a BA, an MBA and a Law degree.

[Ledgem]

Originally Posted by Vallen Chaos Valiant

Santorum hasn't back-pedalled YET. He still might, but not until he secured the nomination.

And yes, I have no problem believing that Santorum consider the Bible a higher authority than the Constitution.

He has backpedaled. Remember his statement linking Obama to Nazi Germany? After he got called on it he made that remark about 'Oh, but I'm not making a comparison between Obama and Hitler.' More recently he went on a tirade about how gas prices are what brought down the economy in 2008, not the banks and debt issues. When he got called on it, he made this statement: "I said that that was a factor. I'm sorry. I will make sure that I will be much more specific when I talk about it."

Yeah, "I'm sorry." I'm sure he wasn't sorry when he riled up a bunch of people into believing that rubbish.

But maybe we just interpret "backpedaling" to mean different things. To me, backpedaling isn't reversing your stances. It's overshooting something and then being forced to say things like "uh, I didn't mean it that way" or "I'm sorry, I'll be more specific when I talk about it in the future." Granted, I suppose that may just mean he's a crap communicator and he needs to do a lot of clarifying, but I'm fairly certain that he knows what he's doing.

He'd probably be having a lot more fun if the rest of us stopped asking questions about his claims. Damn, what's wrong with college-educated people? Can't just let a guy shoot of his mouth and have a grand old time, these diploma-bearing jerks just have to rain on everyone's parade, huh?

I didn't bring up the Bible to say that Santorum didn't believe that it should take precedence over the Constitution. Rather, it seems like it's very common these days for politicians to put something ahead of the Constitution. For Santorum, it's the Bible; but it's still something coming before the Constitution. Typical modern politician.

[solomon]

Is it putting the Bible before the Constitution? Or cherry picking certain Constitutional ideas that easily fit in to a Biblically influenced viewpoint.

I've stopped using the Constitution as a sacred piece of paper for a while now. I still generally believe in what it says, but people cherry pick and interpret things from a document that could not account for all the things we have to deal with in the 21st century.

Oh yea

Shout out to Gundam fan for referencing my favorite short from Heavy Metal!

[Ithekro]

Well I think I am repeating myself, but if any President tries to put Bibilical laws or institute a religion into the country, he'll be impeached. If Clinton can get impeached for lying under oath, someone can get impeached for violating the Constitution.


I predicted around 2000 or 2001 that it would take about 16 years to get out of the mess that had started with the economy. So far I think I've been correct. Based on the Great Depression, it takes at least two Presidencies to get out of a major economic mess. It could take longer, but I figure it will be at the end of Obama's second term (or the end of the first term of whichever Republican defeats him....or whatever Vice President or other person down the chain is in office should something bad happen) when thing might start to finally look like they are turning around. And it might be a policy introduced by the Bush adminitration or even the Clinton adminitration that gets us out of it...just that whatever it was took a long time to get moving. Such is the way of the econimy and politics.

[Vexx]

16 years sounds about right... but it could be longer depending on how many times we try the same proven-failure tactics touted by a certain faction that got us into the mess to begin with (strangely, the same tactics touted in the 1920s, the 1850s, and many in-between fail moments when we "stopped being stern with those poor wittle robber barons" )