The only thing I'll add to the discussion is to suggest that people consider voting third party. Ds and Rs aren't the only options, and IMHO voting for the lesser of two evils is still evil. Find a third party you like and vote for them.
Good thing my BG2 party is evil aligned then, lol.
But on a more serious note, unless the American political system is reformed to something similar to Australia's where 3rd parties actually have a chance of winning, I'll always vote Democrat even though my views are closer to the Progressive Party (a 3rd party). Not because Democrats are particularly special, but because I disagree with Republicans on every issue and I don't want the country to go back to how things were under Bush. Unfortunately in the current system a vote for the Progressives amounts to not voting at all, so I'll continue to support the Democrats for the forseeable future.
Edit: I will vote for 3rd parties when they're running for smaller local races where the chance of their winning an election is possible under the current system and where in any event no huge catastrophe will result if they lose. I won't do this for larger poltical races under the current system because it helps people come to power who not only can and will cause enormous global problems but will also actively work to undo everything I believe in. Therefore, in my opinion it is most responsible to vote for the Democrats in each major election; not because I think they will solve problems, but because history has shown that they won't go out of their way to cause them.
The only thing I'll add to the discussion is to suggest that people consider voting third party. Ds and Rs aren't the only options, and IMHO voting for the lesser of two evils is still evil. Find a third party you like and vote for them.
Good thing my BG2 party is evil aligned then, lol.
But on a more serious note, unless the American political system is reformed to something similar to Australia's where 3rd parties actually have a chance of winning, I'll always vote Democrat even though my views are closer to the Progressive Party (a 3rd party). Not because Democrats are particularly special, but because I disagree with Republicans on every issue and I don't want the country to go back to how things were under Bush. Unfortunately in the current system a vote for the Progressives amounts to not voting at all, so I'll continue to support the Democrats for the forseeable future.
Edit: I will vote for 3rd parties when they're running for smaller local races where the chance of their winning an election is possible under the current system and where in any event no huge catastrophe will result if they lose. I won't do this for larger poltical races under the current system because it helps people come to power who not only can and will cause enormous global problems but will also actively work to undo everything I believe in. Therefore, in my opinion it is most responsible to vote for the Democrats in each major election; not because I think they will solve problems, but because history has shown that they won't go out of their way to cause them.
I would implore you to consider what "back to Bush" means, because to some of us, other than the rhetoric and justifications used, the War on Terror, domestic spying, indefinite detention, crony bailouts, War on (some) Drugs, TSA abuses, ignoring mounting debt and deficit issues, and numerous other things are pretty much the same.
I have no intention of voting for Romney and yet I also have no intention of rewarding Obama for basically running his administration in the opposite direction of what he campaigned on.
I'll start voting in U.S. Presidential elections again when there is a noticeable difference between the two candidates who have any chance in hell of winning. Until then, there are better ways to spend my day.
The only thing I'll add to the discussion is to suggest that people consider voting third party. Ds and Rs aren't the only options, and IMHO voting for the lesser of two evils is still evil. Find a third party you like and vote for them.
Good thing my BG2 party is evil aligned then, lol.
But on a more serious note, unless the American political system is reformed to something similar to Australia's where 3rd parties actually have a chance of winning, I'll always vote Democrat even though my views are closer to the Progressive Party (a 3rd party). Not because Democrats are particularly special, but because I disagree with Republicans on every issue and I don't want the country to go back to how things were under Bush. Unfortunately in the current system a vote for the Progressives amounts to not voting at all, so I'll continue to support the Democrats for the forseeable future.
Edit: I will vote for 3rd parties when they're running for smaller local races where the chance of their winning an election is possible under the current system and where in any event no huge catastrophe will result if they lose. I won't do this for larger poltical races under the current system because it helps people come to power who not only can and will cause enormous global problems but will also actively work to undo everything I believe in. Therefore, in my opinion it is most responsible to vote for the Democrats in each major election; not because I think they will solve problems, but because history has shown that they won't go out of their way to cause them.
I would implore you to consider what "back to Bush" means, because to some of us, other than the rhetoric and justifications used, the War on Terror, domestic spying, indefinite detention, crony bailouts, War on (some) Drugs, TSA abuses, ignoring mounting debt and deficit issues, and numerous other things are pretty much the same.
Yeah, I'm really not enjoying Bush's third term either.
Voting for a candidate with which you don't agree when there is candidate with which you do agree seems completely illogical. There's no prize for winning here, and voting for a third party does not in any way amount to not voting at all. There are a finite amount of votes so if you and your friends do vote third party, those are votes that the monopoly party will not get. If more people do this, third parties become viable. Not voting for a third party candidate when you do support them actually damages the party and encourages the status quo, so a person who does this is perpetuating the very system they claim to hate.
I found it hilarious that the chairman of the RNC claims that a third party candidate like Gary Johnson is a non-factor and they are not worried about him, yet the same party bosses are actively working feverishly to keep him off ballots in 3 states. That doesn't sound like an establishment that's not worried at all about third party candidates, especially ones who are garnering 10%+ in important states like Ohio and Virginia. No, third parties are known as spoilers for the very reason that they DO siphon votes from majority party candidates and can cause changes in the result of the election. The RNC clearly knows this and with the rise of independent voters, that's all the more reason to support alternative candidates rather than the mainstream force-fed options.
As many have said, they can't tell the difference between the positions of these two majority candidates and understand that they both represent the status quo. Why not vote for something different? It absolutely does matter and so does your vote.
I have no intention of voting for Romney and yet I also have no intention of rewarding Obama for basically running his administration in the opposite direction of what he campaigned on.
I'll start voting in U.S. Presidential elections again when there is a noticeable difference between the two candidates who have any chance in hell of winning. Until then, there are better ways to spend my day.
Thanks for holding the democrats accountable. I wish more democrat voters would.
The only thing I'll add to the discussion is to suggest that people consider voting third party. Ds and Rs aren't the only options, and IMHO voting for the lesser of two evils is still evil. Find a third party you like and vote for them.
Good thing my BG2 party is evil aligned then, lol.
But on a more serious note, unless the American political system is reformed to something similar to Australia's where 3rd parties actually have a chance of winning, I'll always vote Democrat even though my views are closer to the Progressive Party (a 3rd party). Not because Democrats are particularly special, but because I disagree with Republicans on every issue and I don't want the country to go back to how things were under Bush. Unfortunately in the current system a vote for the Progressives amounts to not voting at all, so I'll continue to support the Democrats for the forseeable future.
Edit: I will vote for 3rd parties when they're running for smaller local races where the chance of their winning an election is possible under the current system and where in any event no huge catastrophe will result if they lose. I won't do this for larger poltical races under the current system because it helps people come to power who not only can and will cause enormous global problems but will also actively work to undo everything I believe in. Therefore, in my opinion it is most responsible to vote for the Democrats in each major election; not because I think they will solve problems, but because history has shown that they won't go out of their way to cause them.
I would implore you to consider what "back to Bush" means, because to some of us, other than the rhetoric and justifications used, the War on Terror, domestic spying, indefinite detention, crony bailouts, War on (some) Drugs, TSA abuses, ignoring mounting debt and deficit issues, and numerous other things are pretty much the same.
Yeah, I'm really not enjoying Bush's third term either.
Voting for a candidate with which you don't agree when there is candidate with which you do agree seems completely illogical. There's no prize for winning here, and voting for a third party does not in any way amount to not voting at all. There are a finite amount of votes so if you and your friends do vote third party, those are votes that the monopoly party will not get. If more people do this, third parties become viable. Not voting for a third party candidate when you do support them actually damages the party and encourages the status quo, so a person who does this is perpetuating the very system they claim to hate.
I found it hilarious that the chairman of the RNC claims that a third party candidate like Gary Johnson is a non-factor and they are not worried about him, yet the same party bosses are actively working feverishly to keep him off ballots in 3 states. That doesn't sound like an establishment that's not worried at all about third party candidates, especially ones who are garnering 10%+ in important states like Ohio and Virginia. No, third parties are known as spoilers for the very reason that they DO siphon votes from majority party candidates and can cause changes in the result of the election. The RNC clearly knows this and with the rise of independent voters, that's all the more reason to support alternative candidates rather than the mainstream force-fed options.
As many have said, they can't tell the difference between the positions of these two majority candidates and understand that they both represent the status quo. Why not vote for something different? It absolutely does matter and so does your vote.
I cannot say that Obama surprised me much. I assume the worst about pretty much every politician, and sadly, very rarely is my assumption proven wrong.
The only thing I'll add to the discussion is to suggest that people consider voting third party. Ds and Rs aren't the only options, and IMHO voting for the lesser of two evils is still evil. Find a third party you like and vote for them.
Good thing my BG2 party is evil aligned then, lol.
But on a more serious note, unless the American political system is reformed to something similar to Australia's where 3rd parties actually have a chance of winning, I'll always vote Democrat even though my views are closer to the Progressive Party (a 3rd party). Not because Democrats are particularly special, but because I disagree with Republicans on every issue and I don't want the country to go back to how things were under Bush. Unfortunately in the current system a vote for the Progressives amounts to not voting at all, so I'll continue to support the Democrats for the forseeable future.
Edit: I will vote for 3rd parties when they're running for smaller local races where the chance of their winning an election is possible under the current system and where in any event no huge catastrophe will result if they lose. I won't do this for larger poltical races under the current system because it helps people come to power who not only can and will cause enormous global problems but will also actively work to undo everything I believe in. Therefore, in my opinion it is most responsible to vote for the Democrats in each major election; not because I think they will solve problems, but because history has shown that they won't go out of their way to cause them.
I would implore you to consider what "back to Bush" means, because to some of us, other than the rhetoric and justifications used, the War on Terror, domestic spying, indefinite detention, crony bailouts, War on (some) Drugs, TSA abuses, ignoring mounting debt and deficit issues, and numerous other things are pretty much the same.
I agree that Obama could have done a lot better and I do disagree with him on several issues, but from my perspective Democrats do not generally make things worse than they already are. Obama didn't get rid of Guantanamo and a number of other things I'd hoped he would do, but he didn't create a bunch of new problems either. The problems he didn't get rid of were also pretty much all created by Republicans. Republicans consistently cause problems both foreign and domestic. If a Democrat is in office I at least have the peace of mind that someone is TRYING to do the right thing. They might not be perfect, but they will at least attempt to go in the right direction. If a Republican is in office, unfortunately I can expect the opposite. Be it scientific research, the education system, crime, the economy, foreign policy, civil rights, etc. Republicans in recent history have consistently gone out of their way to make it worse, which is why I will not vote for them. Democrats, while imperfect, generally at least TRY to make things better, which is why they have my vote on the national level.
I would like to encourage people not to vote. The two primary candidates believe in torture, continuing drone strikes, exercising the death penalty without trials, and other vicious human rights violations.
If its all the same with everyone else I'm going to debunk these 1 at a time.
President Barack Obama on Torture as of April 2009, stated that waterboarding and other common "torture" techniques. Instead he said interrogations of prisoners of war would be conducted as outlined in the army field manual. As of 14 November last year, Politifact held that he had in fact banned torture and it had not been ignored.
President Barack Obama has used Drone Strikes to eliminate external threats to the country. I would like to note that while many nations are firmly against this at the moment, it is not as of yet a human rights violation. If you want to call it anything you could call it a violation of National Sovereignty. In international law terms, its still murky, but I think a case could be made. For the record I am against drone attacks, but the legality of them, on the international scene, has not been firmly decided yet (aka UN Resolution).
Exercising the death penalty without trials.
Barring you bringing up any other occurrences @Stargazer5781, I will assume this is directly related to the death of Osama Bin Ladin. If I am wrong, please inform me afterwards. The SEAL team went in with a capture order. However, Osama fought back (so far as we know as of now), and as such, the SEAL team exercised their right to defend themselves and returned fire. If you're suspected for arrest in the United States and Cops come to your house. You tell them "you won't take me alive" and fire at them, your odds of making it to trial drop dram
The only thing I'll add to the discussion is to suggest that people consider voting third party. Ds and Rs aren't the only options, and IMHO voting for the lesser of two evils is still evil. Find a third party you like and vote for them.
I would implore you to consider what "back to Bush" means, because to some of us, other than the rhetoric and justifications used, the War on Terror, domestic spying, indefinite detention, crony bailouts, War on (some) Drugs, TSA abuses, ignoring mounting debt and deficit issues, and numerous other things are pretty much the same.
Again I am going to go one at a time.
War on Terror: We're out of Iraq, We're on or ahead of schedule to be out of Afghanistan no later than 2014.
Domestic Spying: Does continue, I will give you that.
Crony bailouts: The TARP funds were implemented under then President George W. Bush and should not be included here. If you're referring to the auto industry, then most of them have managed a tremendous comeback since the bailouts. If you're referring to Solyndra, then that was .5% of the entire Green Energy Initiative Budget, and we caught it because of the increased government Transparency of the Obama Administration.
Indefinite Detention (Sorry for getting these out of order):
I will grant that the government currently holds the power to do this and that Obama signed it into law. I will also note that he signed it with reservations, particularly about indefinite detention. Again this is something I am firmly against and something I would take to court if it happened to me.
War On (some) Drugs:
I'm assuming you're referring to the City of Los Angeles and Marijuana. In this case, going after all the pot vendors in the city was done by 4 Attorney's General in California and 3 other states and not due to President Barack Obama's administration.
TSA Abuses:
Correct, the regulations have gotten more stringent under President Barack Obama. Again this is an honest point of contention and one we'd likely see the same side on.
Ignoring the mounting debt and deficit issues:
*sigh* I'll admit I'm so sick of talking about this particular issue I almost want to screen. I apologize in advance if I come off harsh here as its not intended.
WARNING ECONOMICS/HISTORY LESSON FOLLOWS
In 1929, then-President Herbert Hoover oversaw the greatest financial meltdown in our nations history. We commonly refer to this as the great depression. One thing that his administration tried to do was cut back government funding and pay down the debt. Lo and behold, that strategy did not work, in fact made the problem worse and in the fall of 1932, we elected President Franklin D. Roosevelt to the White House. The Crux of FDR's strategy for increasing employment in the United States was to implement sweeping measures across the board, in some cases drastically over stepping Executive Power (A ton of Supreme Court cases from 35-37/38 deal with this and work arounds, really an interesting time in terms of Government Power cases), but by using the government to put people back to work. He didn't worry about the deficit, he worried about making sure that Americans had jobs. Things started to improve, and by 1937, Congress and the population started to start chanting about paying off the deficit again. In 1937, as a result of attempting to do this, on top of some of his programs being ruled Unconstitutional, the economy began to fall into a recession again. By 1938, with a key chair in the Supreme Court swinging into his favor and finding clever work arounds for the Supreme Court rulings, FDR was back to spending money again to employ Americans.
The economy had already improved by 50% by the time the United States entered World War 2 (which is what most people want to say really got us out of the Great Depression), but the fact of the matter is World War 2, from a home economics standpoint, was nothing more than the New Deal on steriods. Furthermore, the economy had already begun to improve before we entered into the War.
END ECONOMICS/HISTORY LESSON
All that was to say that yes, the deficit and debt do matter, but they're a lot easier to pay down once the economy is running and on its feet, rather than attempting to force austerity measures now and increasing the chance that it will actually harm the economy instead of help it. It's a lot easier to pay things down when only 5-6% of your population is unemployed instead of 7.8,8,9,10%.
President Barack Obama and Gitmo have a storied history behind them.
One of the first things he did on the day he swore his Oath as President was to sign an order attempting to close Guantanamo Bay. The problem was that Congress refused to stop funding it to let him close it thus it stayed open. So yes he did break his promise in 2011 when he signed an order reopening it, but it wasn't for lack of an attempt to close the base.
I can ALMOST understand why he reopened it. No states were willing to take any of the detainees and none of our allies would take them either. Nor could we simply send them back where there were good chances they would either be killed (which would be inhumane as someone said earlier) or they might very well plot against us. I don't like that its still opening, and if they're given honest military trials, then they should be treated as prisoners of war. I will say this is a very murky area, and I do not HAVE enough legal knowledge or enough facts to go into all the details here. I would like to say however that I honestly do look forward to the day that we close the Guantanamo Bay Detention Facility.
As far as some of his domestic promises that he has been unable to keep, (specifically thinking of the DREAM Act here), they have been largely stonewalled by a minority of US senators (41) who filibuster a majority of his policies. Can we really hold him accountable for another branch of government refusing to budge? When the minority leader in the Senate says, in December 2010, that he wants to make the sitting President a one term president and will block and filibuster as much of his agenda as he can?
In order to pass the ACA, we had to get 60 US senators to vote for it. And this is where voting comes into play, not just for the president but for everything on the ballot. That means that currently, 40+1 senators can block anything from making it to the President's Desk to sign (not including confirming Presidential nominees etc). Every state in the Union has 2 senators, so effectively 20 states + half of another can block any legislation they want. Sure California MIGHT have more electoral votes than Idaho, but they're all equal when it comes to the Senate. I'm not saying I like the electoral college, as has been pointed out there are numerous times where it has failed us, and I think we need to find something better. But the electoral college isn't the be-all, end-all of our government.
When I cast my ballot in a few days (waiting for it to arrive in the mail), I'll be voting for my local congressional representative, numerous state constitutional amendments, county ordinances, local judges, local sheriff, supervisor of elections, AND the President. You need to vote not only to make your voice heard in the Presidential Election, but also so that you make your voice heard when it comes to politics and policies a lot closer to home than Washington, D.C. and the federal government.
Look into your candidates for the various offices. Google their names and their platforms. Google your state amendments and local ordinances. Inform yourself and make informed decisions about everything. Make your voice heard not just for President, but for all aspects of government.
In 1929, then-President Herbert Hoover oversaw the greatest financial meltdown in our nations history. We commonly refer to this as the great depression. One thing that his administration tried to do was cut back government funding and pay down the debt. Lo and behold, that strategy did not work, in fact made the problem worse and in the fall of 1932, we elected President Franklin D. Roosevelt to the White House. The Crux of FDR's strategy for increasing employment in the United States was to implement sweeping measures across the board, in some cases drastically over stepping Executive Power (A ton of Supreme Court cases from 35-37/38 deal with this and work arounds, really an interesting time in terms of Government Power cases), but by using the government to put people back to work. He didn't worry about the deficit, he worried about making sure that Americans had jobs. Things started to improve, and by 1937, Congress and the population started to start chanting about paying off the deficit again. In 1937, as a result of attempting to do this, on top of some of his programs being ruled Unconstitutional, the economy began to fall into a recession again. By 1938, with a key chair in the Supreme Court swinging into his favor and finding clever work arounds for the Supreme Court rulings, FDR was back to spending money again to employ Americans.
The economy had already improved by 50% by the time the United States entered World War 2 (which is what most people want to say really got us out of the Great Depression), but the fact of the matter is World War 2, from a home economics standpoint, was nothing more than the New Deal on steriods. Furthermore, the economy had already begun to improve before we entered into the War.
END ECONOMICS/HISTORY LESSON
All that was to say that yes, the deficit and debt do matter, but they're a lot easier to pay down once the economy is running and on its feet, rather than attempting to force austerity measures now and increasing the chance that it will actually harm the economy instead of help it. It's a lot easier to pay things down when only 5-6% of your population is unemployed instead of 7.8,8,9,10%.
I must take issue with these paragraphs as you're attempting to present history and it's important that it is as accurate and complete as possible. To wit, there are several notions here I'd like to address:
"Hoover cut back government funding which made the problem worse." This notion has permeated and poisoned history lessons enough and it is time to put it to rest. It's absolutely false. In the 1932 campaign for President, Hoover was accused by FDR and his running-mate as taxing, spending, and borrowing too much, as well as putting American on the path to socialism and they were absolutely right. The Smoot-Hawley Tariff, passed in 1930 on top of the previous Fordney-McCumber Tariff affected a huge number of goods and destroyed thousands of American jobs. The sparked a trade war that further raised the prices of American exports to foreigners while simultaneously damaging agriculture and farm banks. Those banks failed as agriculture prices crashed. What was Hoover's response? Huge government spending programs for farm relief subsidies and doubling of income taxes. Even FDR's people admitted years later that practically every program FDR enacted was built on the foundation of Hoover's policies. Of course, all of this only worsened the initial economic conditions and dragged the economy down for years. FDR doubled down on Hoover's policies and this not only deepened the depression by made it much more painful. By breaking his promises and doing a complete 180, FDR destroyed our currency by confiscating gold and devalued it to pay for his spending programs. His wage controls priced millions out of the market for jobs. His entitlement programs are bankrupting the federal budget today. The huge bureaucracy FDR created made it next to impossible for the private sector to create jobs in the short-term, so he had to put people to work in government, producing nothing useful and then of course, into war. Only when the Supreme Court outlawed some of FDR's policies in the mid-30s did the economy show signs of recovery, but after FDR managed to get around the court and passed the Wagner Act, creating a frightening climate for businesses. FDR further compounded this problem by raising taxes sky-high. Private investment disappeared. Only by putting people into the war were jobs created, which again produced nothing useful for the economy and rationing was all over the place. American was building bombs and tanks and guns but nobody had stuff they needed like... food. Only when the war ended did true prosperity finally emerge and all the soldiers who returned home and went back to work (where people were scared they'd be out of work) in the private sector. Finally, the tax rates came down and businesses began to thrive again, not because of, but in spite of FDR's massive interventionist scheme. It seemed that Americans had completely forgotten the recession of 1920, which only lasted 1 year and hardly any government intervention, no stimulus, tax changes or wage and price controls occurred. Had America followed a path of austerity as the Great Depression began, many economists believe it would have been another non-event. Unfortunately, by that time, Keynesian nonsense had been embraced and since that time, we'dve been saddled by a huge behemoth government that attempts to solve every problem and only succeeds in creating economic disaster after economic disaster. It's only natural that the President be blamed for continuing these flawed policies but unfortunate that people genuinely believe that the Romney plan is any different. As for paying down the debt now, there's no plan to do that in our lifetime, which is a shame because Americans have already figured that out as they pay down their own debt while the feds rack up more to pile on top of us. We haven't learned our lessons yet.
I'll agree Obama is better than Romney on torture. His "ban" has done a lot to end torture within the US. By no means has he stopped torturing people, however. His administration has been outsourcing torture to other countries. You can read more about it here. http://www.salon.com/2012/08/14/tomgram_alfred_mccoy_perfecting_illegality_salpart/
As far as expanding war and drone strikes, Obama as ordered attacks on Yemen, Pakistan, Afghanistan, Iraq, Somalia, and Libya. There are countless articles on the topic, don't know what you'd be interested in. Perhaps a discussion on the recent terrorization of Pakistani civilians? http://www.democracynow.org/2012/9/26/study_finds_us_drone_strikes_in
These used to be things liberals cared about. I don't know which is more confusing - why conservatives hate him, or why liberals love him. Maybe if Romney wins the left will care about protecting the oppressed again. I can only hope.
I'll agree Obama is better than Romney on torture. His "ban" has done a lot to end torture within the US. By no means has he stopped torturing people, however. His administration has been outsourcing torture to other countries. You can read more about it here. http://www.salon.com/2012/08/14/tomgram_alfred_mccoy_perfecting_illegality_salpart/
As far as expanding war and drone strikes, Obama as ordered attacks on Yemen, Pakistan, Afghanistan, Iraq, Somalia, and Libya. There are countless articles on the topic, don't know what you'd be interested in. Perhaps a discussion on the recent terrorization of Pakistani civilians? http://www.democracynow.org/2012/9/26/study_finds_us_drone_strikes_in
These used to be things liberals cared about. I don't know which is more confusing - why conservatives hate him, or why liberals love him. Maybe if Romney wins the left will care about protecting the oppressed again. I can only hope.
It makes more sense when you look at it as yankees v. red sox, or lakers v. celtics. Just Team Red v. Team Blue.
That is why the excuses can so often fall under the "yeah, but the other guy did it moar timez!"
Some corrections to posts above:
TARP was a totally bipartisan effort. Obama is not the only Democrat in the US, and Timmy G. (tax exading Sec. of Treas hypocrite) was under Obama's direction with how the final 500 billion of TARP was spent. (and remember Obama's fantasy about "shovel ready"?)
Hoover was just as proactive in the Depression as Roosevelt. The idea that he wasn't a technocratically inclined meddler is completely backwards. Two words, "Hoover Dam"
Considering how many economic policy complete 180s Roosevelt made, it is easy to say that he hurt the economy at least as much as he helped it (unpredictability in regulations is bad in itself).
And if we are to give Roosevelt credit for the improvement in the economy before WW2, he must also take the blame for the first couple years of his administration where the economy became much worse than under the Hoover administration.
I am not certain whether GITMO should be open or closed, but I know that Obama's promises to close it were either cynical lies or foolish idiocy. The issues that made him keep it open were well known to everyone beforehand, so his "evolving" on that issue could only be cynicism or stupidity. (BTW, making promises he does not have the power to keep is something he has done innumerable times, but he is only the latest in a long line of presidents who promise the moon when they know they live in a constitutional democratic republic, and therefore are not omnipotent)
The administration uses the most circular logic in defining who a terrorist is in their drone strikes; a terrorist is anyone they hit.
One needn't be any fan of Bush to still think Obama is just another massive ego who will say or do anything to hang on to power.
Not only do I live in a state where all the electoral votes go to one candidate regardless of how evenly split the popular vote is, the electoral votes are not even tied to the popular vote, and could be cast for the candidate that lost the popular vote if they saw fit to do so.
Not only do I live in a state where all the electoral votes go to one candidate regardless of how evenly split the popular vote is, the electoral votes are not even tied to the popular vote, and could be cast for the candidate that lost the popular vote if they saw fit to do so.
Electoral votes only affect presidential races, so even if the electors did vote against the popular vote, your vote would still count for other things like electing governors, senators, congresspeople, passing laws that require popular votes, etc.
I didn't say I wouldn't vote, but for the presidential election which this post is aimed at, there is no truer way to put it then, "Your vote does not matter" if you live in one of the states that uses the same way to determine electoral votes.
Then your votes must be tied to Congressional district, which means that you and your neighbors need to vote as blocks for the candidate of your choosing. The majority of the district winners wins all the electoral votes. This type of system is supposed to encourage people to vote as members of communities, counties, and states, but because of the silly idea that a national identity is more important than an individual or local identity, many people don't realize this and as a result, aren't active at all in the political system other than showing up to vote once every 4 years.
Then your votes must be tied to Congressional district, which means that you and your neighbors need to vote as blocks for the candidate of your choosing. The majority of the district winners wins all the electoral votes.
In addition to this, there is a common misconception that the president alone has power and can make a difference. This is only true if the majority of elected congressmen support the president.
Congress has been mired in corruption and useless political posturing for the last 10 years or so and is unable to make decisions. In addition, the issues at hand are also so complex that the combined brain power of congress is insufficient to produce competent decisions, even if they could decide on anything. Congressmen and presidents these days are professional 'politicians', not thinkers.
If a bill actually is passed, it always includes misc. amendments which have been 'tacked-on' to the bill by an overwhelming amount of self-serving lobbyists.
That's the situation the U.S. is in, folks. Congress is trapped in a cage of corruption, politics, and stupidity. Therefore, because congress can't make competent decisions, the president has no legitimate power. Your vote doesn't make a difference.
We must vote the Chancellor (President) emergency powers! For anyone who thinks the solution to the US's problems is more Executive power and less oversight, I'd recommend, Cult of the Presidency, a pretty forceful indictment of the abuses of the modern Executive Branch.
Agreed, @triclops41, and sadly, Congress KNOWS it's incapable of making decisions, which is why they keep giving the executive powers for which it hasn't asked, in the hopes that some future President will be able to further legislate from the Oval Office via executive order. The Supreme Court legislates from the bench, so the other two branches, plus the myriad of federal agencies and regulatory organizations are doing Congress' dirty work. Lest anyone believe that we have separate but equal branches and a divided government, forget about it. They're all in cahoots. We don't even have two political parties anymore; they're all members of the Big Government Party.
However, I think your vote does matter, even in federal elections. Protest votes are exposing the corruption, waste, and abuse of power at every level and thanks to the intarwebz, this is getting disseminated to larger and larger groups of people. Anybody who takes a look at what happened during the primaries and at the GOP convention can plainly see the nonsense that went on and they're getting sick and tired of it.
Agreed, @triclops41, and sadly, Congress KNOWS it's incapable of making decisions, which is why they keep giving the executive powers for which it hasn't asked, in the hopes that some future President will be able to further legislate from the Oval Office via executive order. The Supreme Court legislates from the bench, so the other two branches, plus the myriad of federal agencies and regulatory organizations are doing Congress' dirty work. Lest anyone believe that we have separate but equal branches and a divided government, forget about it. They're all in cahoots. We don't even have two political parties anymore; they're all members of the Big Government Party.
However, I think your vote does matter, even in federal elections. Protest votes are exposing the corruption, waste, and abuse of power at every level and thanks to the intarwebz, this is getting disseminated to larger and larger groups of people. Anybody who takes a look at what happened during the primaries and at the GOP convention can plainly see the nonsense that went on and they're getting sick and tired of it.
Perhaps the lesson you learned from the way Ron Paul was treated in the Republican Primaries is that people are getting sick and tired of it; I am skeptical that is the lesson most others learned from it. I like Ron Paul, I like Gary Johnson even more. The lesson I learned is that the current duopoly of political parties is a long way from weakening to the point of being challenged seriously. Too many in both parties would much rather completely sell out than lose the 2 party system that guarantees that at the very worst, they come in second every time. Rs will pay lip service to fiscal conservatism and be only slightly less reckless in spending. Ds will pay lip service to civil rights but only be slightly less brutal in violating privacy and advancing a police state.
@triclops41 the sad part is even the courts don't side with political parties outside of the democrats and republicans. Gary Johnson should have been in the presidential debates, especially considering he is running in at least 48 states (that may have changed I'm not sure), yet he wasn't. It goes to show you how far the democrats and republicans will go to protect their oligopoly.
Totally with you guys, @triclops41 and @elminster. Mr. Johnson's argument in his second lawsuit is that the commission didn't specify that one of the candidates in polls has to be a Democrat or Republican. By comparing him head to head like Barack Obama and Mitt Romney, it's clear that Mr. Johnson does have far more support than necessary to be included. I predict the court though, will find that the commission is a private entity which can make its own decisions on who to include, thus the lawsuit will go nowhere.
@triclops41, I think that what you wrote is true; far more people are still stuck in the muck of the left and right wings of the monopoly party, but I am encouraged because the number of people who are questioning this system is growing, not shrinking. It will probably take years before significant changes occur, but the more people paying attention means that alternative candidates have more of a chance every election year.
The election that has technically no bearing for most of the people who eventually decide who the president is going to be is tomorrow (some states may require electors to vote for the voter selected candidate I'm not sure). Yaa for an antiquated voting system.
America won tonight, but I was tired of the damn talking heads and robocalls LONG before the end of the election cycle. I was like "F them all, I don't want to hear it anymore!" Everywhere on TV and in the paper, there were talking heads and pundits and forecasters, and it got to the point where I avoided all media because if I saw another story on the election, I was gonna puke. That being said, no matter what side won, cue the blamestorming from the other side, and may all those people who claimed that if their candidate didn't win, they were leaving the US actually do so!
Politics here has become a toxic subject, and I am tired of "it's not about running the country, it's about my party defeating yours!" rhetoric which is everywhere. Something needs to change.
I'm still curious which way Puerto Rico is going to go about Statehood. Last I heard, Statehood is winning by six percent, but there are still too many uncounted votes to call it.
Well done america for saving the rest of the world from Romney
This kind of stuff needs to be kept to yourself.
I am not going to tell you guys which way I voted because I believe that's private information and should be kept that way.
We shouldn't care who another person supports. But we should care about people trying to rub it in other's faces. One guy calling all Romney supporters "cunts" in another thread, and another congratulating the side emerging as victorious as being "saviors" is malicious and has no place here on the forums.
I urge you guys to keep it to yourselves, on both sides. No one needs to start whining about the direction of the country, and no one needs to start gloating.
I'm not gloating or calling names, the whole point of a forum is to express your opinion. I was simply saying that outside of the usa people are happy that Romney didn't get in.
I was simply stating no one cares what your opinion of what people's opinions outside of the United States are, and that such things should be kept to yourself.
Doesn't matter if you don't see it as gloating; it still is.
The point of a forum is many things, but at the end of the day it is just like any other form of communication. You are typing and therefore communicating with a whole lot of other people. Politics is a nasty is subject with extreme emotions attached, therefore mind what you say. Just because you believe it's for expressing opinion doesn't mean there are right and wrong ways to go about expressing that opinion, and right and wrong topics to even bring up in the first place.
Example: "I am glad Obama won." This expresses your opinion and in a way that doesn't diminish or mitigate the people on the other side.
Example: "Well done america for saving the rest of the world from Romney " This expresses your opinion in a way that suggests people who are Romney supporters are evil and anti-world; that Romney's politics are an insidious evil from which the world needs saving. This also suggests people who voted for him are wicked.
Looking at numbers right now, there's some 56.7~ million Americans who voted Romney. That's a lot of people to be calling evil and stupid, especially when the other side had 59~ million votes.
Considering this forum is for an upcoming video game which may or may not come out at the end of the month, I suggest we try to keep it as political opinion free as possible.
Comments
But on a more serious note, unless the American political system is reformed to something similar to Australia's where 3rd parties actually have a chance of winning, I'll always vote Democrat even though my views are closer to the Progressive Party (a 3rd party). Not because Democrats are particularly special, but because I disagree with Republicans on every issue and I don't want the country to go back to how things were under Bush. Unfortunately in the current system a vote for the Progressives amounts to not voting at all, so I'll continue to support the Democrats for the forseeable future.
Edit: I will vote for 3rd parties when they're running for smaller local races where the chance of their winning an election is possible under the current system and where in any event no huge catastrophe will result if they lose. I won't do this for larger poltical races under the current system because it helps people come to power who not only can and will cause enormous global problems but will also actively work to undo everything I believe in. Therefore, in my opinion it is most responsible to vote for the Democrats in each major election; not because I think they will solve problems, but because history has shown that they won't go out of their way to cause them.
I'll start voting in U.S. Presidential elections again when there is a noticeable difference between the two candidates who have any chance in hell of winning. Until then, there are better ways to spend my day.
Voting for a candidate with which you don't agree when there is candidate with which you do agree seems completely illogical. There's no prize for winning here, and voting for a third party does not in any way amount to not voting at all. There are a finite amount of votes so if you and your friends do vote third party, those are votes that the monopoly party will not get. If more people do this, third parties become viable. Not voting for a third party candidate when you do support them actually damages the party and encourages the status quo, so a person who does this is perpetuating the very system they claim to hate.
I found it hilarious that the chairman of the RNC claims that a third party candidate like Gary Johnson is a non-factor and they are not worried about him, yet the same party bosses are actively working feverishly to keep him off ballots in 3 states. That doesn't sound like an establishment that's not worried at all about third party candidates, especially ones who are garnering 10%+ in important states like Ohio and Virginia. No, third parties are known as spoilers for the very reason that they DO siphon votes from majority party candidates and can cause changes in the result of the election. The RNC clearly knows this and with the rise of independent voters, that's all the more reason to support alternative candidates rather than the mainstream force-fed options.
As many have said, they can't tell the difference between the positions of these two majority candidates and understand that they both represent the status quo. Why not vote for something different? It absolutely does matter and so does your vote.
President Barack Obama on Torture as of April 2009, stated that waterboarding and other common "torture" techniques. Instead he said interrogations of prisoners of war would be conducted as outlined in the army field manual. As of 14 November last year, Politifact held that he had in fact banned torture and it had not been ignored.
http://www.politifact.com/truth-o-meter/promises/obameter/promise/175/end-the-use-of-torture/
President Barack Obama has used Drone Strikes to eliminate external threats to the country. I would like to note that while many nations are firmly against this at the moment, it is not as of yet a human rights violation. If you want to call it anything you could call it a violation of National Sovereignty. In international law terms, its still murky, but I think a case could be made. For the record I am against drone attacks, but the legality of them, on the international scene, has not been firmly decided yet (aka UN Resolution).
Exercising the death penalty without trials.
Barring you bringing up any other occurrences @Stargazer5781, I will assume this is directly related to the death of Osama Bin Ladin. If I am wrong, please inform me afterwards. The SEAL team went in with a capture order. However, Osama fought back (so far as we know as of now), and as such, the SEAL team exercised their right to defend themselves and returned fire. If you're suspected for arrest in the United States and Cops come to your house. You tell them "you won't take me alive" and fire at them, your odds of making it to trial drop dram
I must take issue with these paragraphs as you're attempting to present history and it's important that it is as accurate and complete as possible. To wit, there are several notions here I'd like to address:
"Hoover cut back government funding which made the problem worse." This notion has permeated and poisoned history lessons enough and it is time to put it to rest. It's absolutely false. In the 1932 campaign for President, Hoover was accused by FDR and his running-mate as taxing, spending, and borrowing too much, as well as putting American on the path to socialism and they were absolutely right. The Smoot-Hawley Tariff, passed in 1930 on top of the previous Fordney-McCumber Tariff affected a huge number of goods and destroyed thousands of American jobs. The sparked a trade war that further raised the prices of American exports to foreigners while simultaneously damaging agriculture and farm banks. Those banks failed as agriculture prices crashed. What was Hoover's response? Huge government spending programs for farm relief subsidies and doubling of income taxes. Even FDR's people admitted years later that practically every program FDR enacted was built on the foundation of Hoover's policies. Of course, all of this only worsened the initial economic conditions and dragged the economy down for years. FDR doubled down on Hoover's policies and this not only deepened the depression by made it much more painful. By breaking his promises and doing a complete 180, FDR destroyed our currency by confiscating gold and devalued it to pay for his spending programs. His wage controls priced millions out of the market for jobs. His entitlement programs are bankrupting the federal budget today. The huge bureaucracy FDR created made it next to impossible for the private sector to create jobs in the short-term, so he had to put people to work in government, producing nothing useful and then of course, into war. Only when the Supreme Court outlawed some of FDR's policies in the mid-30s did the economy show signs of recovery, but after FDR managed to get around the court and passed the Wagner Act, creating a frightening climate for businesses. FDR further compounded this problem by raising taxes sky-high. Private investment disappeared. Only by putting people into the war were jobs created, which again produced nothing useful for the economy and rationing was all over the place. American was building bombs and tanks and guns but nobody had stuff they needed like... food. Only when the war ended did true prosperity finally emerge and all the soldiers who returned home and went back to work (where people were scared they'd be out of work) in the private sector. Finally, the tax rates came down and businesses began to thrive again, not because of, but in spite of FDR's massive interventionist scheme. It seemed that Americans had completely forgotten the recession of 1920, which only lasted 1 year and hardly any government intervention, no stimulus, tax changes or wage and price controls occurred. Had America followed a path of austerity as the Great Depression began, many economists believe it would have been another non-event. Unfortunately, by that time, Keynesian nonsense had been embraced and since that time, we'dve been saddled by a huge behemoth government that attempts to solve every problem and only succeeds in creating economic disaster after economic disaster. It's only natural that the President be blamed for continuing these flawed policies but unfortunate that people genuinely believe that the Romney plan is any different. As for paying down the debt now, there's no plan to do that in our lifetime, which is a shame because Americans have already figured that out as they pay down their own debt while the feds rack up more to pile on top of us. We haven't learned our lessons yet.
I'll agree Obama is better than Romney on torture. His "ban" has done a lot to end torture within the US. By no means has he stopped torturing people, however. His administration has been outsourcing torture to other countries. You can read more about it here.
http://www.salon.com/2012/08/14/tomgram_alfred_mccoy_perfecting_illegality_salpart/
Obama has executed no fewer than three American citizens without a trial, most notably Anwar al-Awlaki
http://www.salon.com/2011/09/30/awlaki_6/
and his 16 year old son from Colorado
http://www.salon.com/2011/10/20/the_killing_of_awlakis_16_year_old_son/\
Executions without trials have explicitly been endorsed and defended by the Obama administration
http://www.salon.com/2012/03/06/attorney_general_holder_defends_execution_without_charges/
As far as expanding war and drone strikes, Obama as ordered attacks on Yemen, Pakistan, Afghanistan, Iraq, Somalia, and Libya. There are countless articles on the topic, don't know what you'd be interested in. Perhaps a discussion on the recent terrorization of Pakistani civilians?
http://www.democracynow.org/2012/9/26/study_finds_us_drone_strikes_in
Or perhaps video footage of Obama's victims would move you more (mostly starts at 3:25)
Additional things I take issue with - Obama holds the record for the most deportations of immigrants of any president in history.
http://www.politifact.com/truth-o-meter/statements/2012/aug/10/american-principles-action/has-barack-obama-deported-more-people-any-other-pr/
He has attacked women's reproductive rights by preventing teenage girls from getting Plan B
http://thinkprogress.org/health/2011/12/08/385145/obama-backs-sebelius-decision-to-limit-availability-of-plan-b/
These used to be things liberals cared about. I don't know which is more confusing - why conservatives hate him, or why liberals love him. Maybe if Romney wins the left will care about protecting the oppressed again. I can only hope.
Just Team Red v. Team Blue.
That is why the excuses can so often fall under the "yeah, but the other guy did it moar timez!"
Some corrections to posts above:
TARP was a totally bipartisan effort. Obama is not the only Democrat in the US, and Timmy G. (tax exading Sec. of Treas hypocrite) was under Obama's direction with how the final 500 billion of TARP was spent. (and remember Obama's fantasy about "shovel ready"?)
Hoover was just as proactive in the Depression as Roosevelt. The idea that he wasn't a technocratically inclined meddler is completely backwards. Two words, "Hoover Dam"
Considering how many economic policy complete 180s Roosevelt made, it is easy to say that he hurt the economy at least as much as he helped it (unpredictability in regulations is bad in itself).
And if we are to give Roosevelt credit for the improvement in the economy before WW2, he must also take the blame for the first couple years of his administration where the economy became much worse than under the Hoover administration.
I am not certain whether GITMO should be open or closed, but I know that Obama's promises to close it were either cynical lies or foolish idiocy. The issues that made him keep it open were well known to everyone beforehand, so his "evolving" on that issue could only be cynicism or stupidity. (BTW, making promises he does not have the power to keep is something he has done innumerable times, but he is only the latest in a long line of presidents who promise the moon when they know they live in a constitutional democratic republic, and therefore are not omnipotent)
The administration uses the most circular logic in defining who a terrorist is in their drone strikes; a terrorist is anyone they hit.
One needn't be any fan of Bush to still think Obama is just another massive ego who will say or do anything to hang on to power.
Not only do I live in a state where all the electoral votes go to one candidate regardless of how evenly split the popular vote is, the electoral votes are not even tied to the popular vote, and could be cast for the candidate that lost the popular vote if they saw fit to do so.
Congress has been mired in corruption and useless political posturing for the last 10 years or so and is unable to make decisions. In addition, the issues at hand are also so complex that the combined brain power of congress is insufficient to produce competent decisions, even if they could decide on anything. Congressmen and presidents these days are professional 'politicians', not thinkers.
If a bill actually is passed, it always includes misc. amendments which have been 'tacked-on' to the bill by an overwhelming amount of self-serving lobbyists.
That's the situation the U.S. is in, folks. Congress is trapped in a cage of corruption, politics, and stupidity. Therefore, because congress can't make competent decisions, the president has no legitimate power. Your vote doesn't make a difference.
For anyone who thinks the solution to the US's problems is more Executive power and less oversight, I'd recommend, Cult of the Presidency, a pretty forceful indictment of the abuses of the modern Executive Branch.
However, I think your vote does matter, even in federal elections. Protest votes are exposing the corruption, waste, and abuse of power at every level and thanks to the intarwebz, this is getting disseminated to larger and larger groups of people. Anybody who takes a look at what happened during the primaries and at the GOP convention can plainly see the nonsense that went on and they're getting sick and tired of it.
@triclops41, I think that what you wrote is true; far more people are still stuck in the muck of the left and right wings of the monopoly party, but I am encouraged because the number of people who are questioning this system is growing, not shrinking. It will probably take years before significant changes occur, but the more people paying attention means that alternative candidates have more of a chance every election year.
Politics here has become a toxic subject, and I am tired of "it's not about running the country, it's about my party defeating yours!" rhetoric which is everywhere. Something needs to change.
Oh, and hot chocolate and oreos for everyone!
I am not going to tell you guys which way I voted because I believe that's private information and should be kept that way.
We shouldn't care who another person supports. But we should care about people trying to rub it in other's faces. One guy calling all Romney supporters "cunts" in another thread, and another congratulating the side emerging as victorious as being "saviors" is malicious and has no place here on the forums.
I urge you guys to keep it to yourselves, on both sides. No one needs to start whining about the direction of the country, and no one needs to start gloating.
Doesn't matter if you don't see it as gloating; it still is.
The point of a forum is many things, but at the end of the day it is just like any other form of communication. You are typing and therefore communicating with a whole lot of other people. Politics is a nasty is subject with extreme emotions attached, therefore mind what you say. Just because you believe it's for expressing opinion doesn't mean there are right and wrong ways to go about expressing that opinion, and right and wrong topics to even bring up in the first place.
Example: "I am glad Obama won."
This expresses your opinion and in a way that doesn't diminish or mitigate the people on the other side.
Example: "Well done america for saving the rest of the world from Romney
This expresses your opinion in a way that suggests people who are Romney supporters are evil and anti-world; that Romney's politics are an insidious evil from which the world needs saving. This also suggests people who voted for him are wicked.
Looking at numbers right now, there's some 56.7~ million Americans who voted Romney. That's a lot of people to be calling evil and stupid, especially when the other side had 59~ million votes.
Considering this forum is for an upcoming video game which may or may not come out at the end of the month, I suggest we try to keep it as political opinion free as possible.