Nov 2023 Mod notice:
There may be other, more specific, threads about some aspects of US politics, but this one tends to act as a hub for all sorts of related news and information, so it's usually one of the busiest OTC threads.
If you're new to OTC, it's worth reading the Introduction to On-Topic Conversations
and the On-Topic Conversations debate guidelines
before posting here.
Rumor-based, fear-mongering and/or inflammatory statements that damage the quality of the thread will be thumped. Off-topic posts will also be thumped. Repeat offenders may be suspended.
If time spent moderating this thread remains a distraction from moderation of the wiki itself, the thread will need to be locked. We want to avoid that, so please follow the forum rules
when posting here.
In line with the general forum rules, 'gravedancing' is prohibited here. If you're celebrating someone's death or hoping that they die, your post will get thumped. This rule applies regardless of what the person you're discussing has said or done.
Edited by Mrph1 on Nov 30th 2023 at 11:03:59 AM
The first thing that the Republican Party would need to do for full recovery is to kick out the Tea Party. The only reason why they still have them there is to maintain a majority in the House. And we all know how that's working out.
More Buscemi at http://forum.reelsociety.com/Well, I've skimmed the topic thus far, and it's proceeded more or less as expected. I'm not going to wade into this until the right-of-center side has more... presence. When pigs fly, in otherwords.
That aside, I'll contribute my more recent thoughts on the Presidency itself, in general.
Which is - the Presidency doesn't matter, really.
I know, I know, but wait, hear me out:
The President doesn't make laws, doesn't write the budget, doesn't raise or lower taxes, doesn't declare wars or end them, doesn't decide economic policy or foreign policy, doesn't create jobs or take away jobs, and doesn't hold the keys to the Treasury to go shoveling it out to the masses. They're all controlled by Congress.
Let me illustrate my point: If Congress tomorrow passed a law saying that all puppies were to be euthanized, the President's only decision is to pick what chemical to use, and make sure there's enough.
He could veto it, probably, but he's easily overruled, and doing so is generally frowned upon anyway. The President's role is to carry out orders, to 'make it so, Number One.' To oversee the military, to handle foreign relations, to manage the bureacracy, and see the paperwork gets done and the checks get sent out. It's a huge job, but he's the President, not 'El Presidente.'
The lack of awareness of this was particularly on display from Obama's supporters during the last election - some of them, still; but they're not the only ones, by a long shot.
Still, people seem to often want 'El Presidente', at least, as long as it's *their* 'El Presidente.' Inevitably, many come to feel he's someone else's dictator, but that's mostly perception.
Every election, Presidents are elected by people with stars in their eyes, expecting that here, at long last, is a Champion, a Hero of The People, a Strong Leader, who will finally Stand Up For What's Right, and will Turn the Country Around and will finally bring about... well, whatever policies his supporters themselves want, rest of the country be damned. Folks hold this idea that if they could just elect The Right Person, they'll Stand Up for this Silent Majority of Good, Honest, Intelligent people who (they assume) agree with them, and will stand up to 'Them' - the special interests, defined as... the opposition. The hand-wringing, insincere, selfish, greedy, fanatical, irrational, atavistic, inherently criminal minority who are responsible for pushing those horrible policies that are responsible for All That Is Wrong In This Sad, Sick World.
Amazing how many people share this view, in every corner of the political arena. I suppose, however, if most people didn't have this illusion to cling to, they'd probably Go Mad From The Revelation.
Tied in with this happy illusion is the other glorious dream that, with victory, comes control. That subconscious belief that the losing side is somehow vanquished, that they'll be removed from the political board like chess pieces, and the winners can now expect their agenda to take center stage. Not really - everybody is still there, and opinions do not change. They will still insist on being heard, and listened to, and thus, policies only change a little.
The idea that our country is not led by a single individual, but rather a vast committee, is, I imagine, disheartening. So the problem is with the politicians, right? They need to quit Standing Around, and Roll Up Their Sleeves, and Lead, right?
Once again, no. The fact is, each one is listening to their particular constituency. The hardest thing to grasp is whatever you believe, there are other voters - honest, intelligent people of good conscience - who hold fundamentally different views about what will bring about a better society. And, harder to swallow - no matter what you personally support, you're a minority. You do not represent a silent majority who are just being trod over. In fact, the only thing that unites major voting blocks, overwhelmingly, is what they *oppose.*
In other words, if you want something to change, the American voter is going to have to come to a nationwide consensus. More often, though, it's easier to just dismiss the other side as crazy, irrational, unreasonable and unethical - and instead rely on linking arms with the like-minded and push, hoping - eventually - you and your allies will finally roll over everybody else, you'll pick a single Strong Leader, who will gloriously cram your views down the national throat.
Anyway, the point I'm trying to make is, I really don't care so much about who wins the Presidency next time. At least, I don't care about their views; they don't matter much, in the long run.
All I really care about is how qualified they are for the job, defined as administrative experience, managing large, extensive operations, and dealing with professionals at a high level. Business administration, governorships, management of bureacracy, military command, community responsibilities (like, say, overseeing the Olympic games) are all good.
Extensive education a plus. Expertise in economics (not Keynesian), history, foreign policy and diplomacy preferred. Good communication skills required.
Or, you know, just keep Obama. Doesn't matter. I'm fairly sure I'll get what I want either way.
edited 11th Aug '11 12:28:01 PM by BaronVonRichtropen
Mm... my current pick is Obama, because everybody else currently in the running is abysmally terrible...
If McCain runs and doesn't take Palin as his running mate again, he becomes first choice, though, unless he has markedly different views than the first time around...
I am now known as Flyboy.Select Smart president 2012 quiz
It helps you find your ideal candidate.
I could elaborate on each one, but the short version, which probably won't bring you much comfort, is that the oppositions to those things were - and remain - far smaller in number amongst the electorate than you may realize.
Bush only proposed these things - making suggestions is about the extent of the President's influence - but Congress approved them because, quite simply, their constituencies overwhelmingly approve.
Recall that Bush won re-election (handily), in spite of the overwhelming criticism he received in the media. The media was not then, as now, a good barometer of public sentiment.
Not taking sides here, mind you. I could, but I'm not interested in debating anybody on either side. I'm just answering your question.
edited 11th Aug '11 3:26:05 PM by BaronVonRichtropen
The President's only real power is to speak to the people, but Obama has failed abysamally even at that.
Blind Final Fantasy 6 Let's Play@BVR You use [[quoteblock]]s to make quotes. / before the q in the second.
I may vote Americans Elect in 2012?
2012 Election Wikipage
I was looking for info on the 2012 race. First, I noticed the dates for the nominating conventions ie Prohibition, Socialist, Constitution, Libertarian (my favorite), Americans Elect, Republican, and Democrat. Then one of those just isn't the same as the other moment happened. American Elect
has it's own Wikipage. American Elect
has its own website as well. Make way for the Radical Center!
If you want you can join and be part of the online June 2012 convention to nominate someone. Ballot access: Alaska, Arizona, Kansas, Nevada.
The new political party that isn't.
New political party added to Arizona's ballot.
The future of elections.
Irregular Article.
Can a third party change 2012?
Donor list
edited 11th Aug '11 1:38:47 PM by secretist
TU NE CEDE MALIS CLASS OF 1971Oh, I don't know about that. His personal ratings remain acceptable. You might say he's merely failed to persuade.
His opponents call him a lefty, but privately, I'd say he's really just been more of a debate referee, someone who's simply outlined the general problem and the overall goals, and let Congress handle the details.
I don't consider that a flaw, by the way.
Edit: Took me a second to realize that I'm 'BVR.' I'm still new to this, heh.
edited 11th Aug '11 3:24:49 PM by BaronVonRichtropen
quoteblock, not just quote
I'll have to wait for the nominations to say anything definitive.
- June 20–22, 2011: Prohibition Party National Convention in Cullman, Alabama[3]
- Nominated: Jack Fellure, James Hedges
- October 14–16, 2011: 2011 Socialist Party USA National Convention to be held in Los Angeles, California[4]
- April or May 2012: 2012 Constitution Party National Convention to be held in Nashville, Tennessee[5]
- May 4–6, 2012: 2012 Libertarian National Convention to be held in Las Vegas, Nevada[6][7]
- June 2012: Americans Elect National Convention held over the internet[8]
- August 27–30, 2012: 2012 Republican National Convention to be held in Tampa, Florida[9][10]
- September 3–6, 2012: 2012 Democratic National Convention to be held in Charlotte, North Carolina[11]
edited 11th Aug '11 2:19:30 PM by secretist
TU NE CEDE MALIS CLASS OF 1971Well, being somewhat to the left of Obama, I clearly want to see a Bachmann/Palin ticket from the GOP side
In all seriousness, I'm far less excited about voting for him in 2012 than I was in supporting him in the 2008 election. The way I (being very liberal) see it, Obama has sold us out to the Tea Party and the fringe right, and refuses to stand up for good, honest liberalism. He doesn't seem to understand that the Tea Party will NEVER compromise, will NEVER support anything that Obama touches, and will stop at NOTHING to delay, obstruct, and repeal every initiative Obama supports that isn't lockstep with their borderline-psychopathic agenda. Obama really needs to start fighting for what the other 75% of the country wants, and if he starts showing some backbone, I'll gladly give him four more years to fix this broken system.
^^^ But by trying to position himself as a neutral mediator, all he's managed to do is give legitimacy to the tea party.
^ I feel much the same way. The only reason he's got support now is because the alternative is unthinkable.
edited 11th Aug '11 2:51:11 PM by storyyeller
Blind Final Fantasy 6 Let's PlayNeither endorsing them or condemning them, I'd say the large number of Tea Partiers is what's given the Tea Party legitimacy.
You won't find it trumpeted in many newspapers or blogs, but even now, the Tea Party gets an approving nod from 36% of the electorate.
Not a majority, but then, who is? At any rate, they're not a fringe. Particularly when 10% describe themselves as doctrinaire (social and fiscal) liberals.
Not Democrats, mind you - just liberals. Liberals are merely one faction of the Democratic party.
I agonize over the most diplomatic way to put this, but it's not a question of voters and politicians not standing up for their beliefs - it's that many liberals don't realize just how alone they really are.
Bluntly: 10% or so of the electorate don't get to tell the other 90% how things are gonna be. They're not even the dinner entertainment.
edited 11th Aug '11 4:06:33 PM by BaronVonRichtropen
^^ Polls showed that 80% were in favor of raising taxes as part of a compromise. That means that the Democrat offered compromise was to the right of 80% of America and the Tea Party still rejected it.. Now tell me how alone they are.
If the Democrats were capable of communicating at all, they could have absolutely killed the Tea Party over the debt debate.
edited 11th Aug '11 4:19:43 PM by storyyeller
Blind Final Fantasy 6 Let's Play^^ Storyteller, dude, first off: chill.
People do tend to take their political views personally - hearing something disheartening about their views and values is, for many, instinctively an attack against themselves, which is why these things get so emotional so quick (and why those who say unpopular things so coincidentally find themselves flamed). I sympathize, and recommend you work to guard yourself against this tendency.
Polls vary, but average out to 60-62% in favor of the mixed approach. That's slightly less than two-thirds, which jives with the Tea Party third. You're actually quoting Obama's speech, which I remember too. He was also lumping in other mixtures of views, but that's insignificant. I did not say Tea Partiers were a majority - they're clearly not - merely that they were significant.
And I said *liberals* - the straight-line environmentalist, Universal health care, pro-gun-control, pro-abortion, affirmative action, gay marriage, Bill Maher, Keith Olbermann progressives - are a very small minority. Which they are.
The rest of the Democratic party support consists of union supporters, minority groups, and a large chunk of social liberals/fiscal conservatives, and people who are actual moderates but think of Rush Limbaugh and Glenn Beck when they think of voting Republican.
Getting mad at a statistic is like hurling invective at the bathroom scale.
Take heart, though: Conservatives - the straightline, Evangelical, Limbaugh, Beck brand - are only about 30%, little less. Libertarians and Mc Cain-Romney types make up the rest of the Republican party.
I have not attacked anybody, nor anybody's views so do not - and I mean, do not - rage at me.
And this, once and for all, is why I have a policy against participating in forums. I'm not getting roped into a debate, and I will most certainly not subject myself to anything like a flame-spam.
edited 11th Aug '11 5:24:36 PM by BaronVonRichtropen
I'm not angry at you. Sorry if it came across that way, but I guess it's hard to interpret emotions over the internet. The only people I'm really angry at are the nutcases in congress and the people egging them on. (Norquist, Palin, etc.)
And the relatively small fraction of stereotypical liberals is beside the point. The Democrats get more support from moderates then they do from liberals. The problem is not that the most liberal 10% are having trouble getting stuff done. Democracy does operate based on majorities after all. The problem is when centrist, or even moderate Republican positions can't be passed.
edited 11th Aug '11 7:05:55 PM by storyyeller
Blind Final Fantasy 6 Let's Play![]()
Note that the democrats wanted the whole mess to be done with as quickly as possible, specifically because they believed that a default or downgrade would be worse than losing 2 trillion in spending on social services.
The republicans keep saying that the budget must be balanced right now, while ignoring the fact that the utterly useless bush tax cuts drop 5 trillion from the budget, and could easily fix a great deal of the problems.
Very big Daydream Believer. "That's not knowledge, that's a crapshoot!" -Al Murray "Welcome to QI" -Stephen Fry

Even if the nomination is palatable, if the VP choice is unacceptable, it'll be a no-go for me.
And it'll be very unlikely that any Republican will be palatable to me, since he'll have to refudiate the Republican House and hard.