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
Pants on Fire.
Also Ryan says that anything they would do in Syria would have to involve American Interests only.
He dodged the moderater asking about humanitarian aid.
edited 11th Oct '12 10:30:33 PM by Thorn14
Meh, the military talk is neocon pandering. I think we all know that.
The real Republican foreign policy plan is to accelerate climate change rapidly and persistently enough to the point where it becomes impossible for the planet to sustain human life, putting an end to terrorism once and for all. It's ingenious, really.
edited 11th Oct '12 11:05:05 PM by HilarityEnsues
It just blows my mind how republicans can go "We don't need health for the poor or schools or teachers or all that junk, what we need is more carriers and submarines!"
Hypothetical scenario. if we went to war with iran and a draft was instated, would we see riots?
edited 11th Oct '12 11:09:20 PM by Thorn14
It definitely wouldn't go over too well with the public, I'll say that much.
In that case, probably.
But that scenario is pretty far-fetched. Ignoring the problems with drafting for a war with Iran in terms of military strategy, it's also political suicide for whoever tries to implement it. Who wants to have reinstating the draft on their record? I wouldn't even want to be in the same party as that guy.
As I see it, the main way any hawkish politician gets people to go along with war is the fact that it's happening in a distant land and it's not personally affecting you. Conscription would turn it into a personal issue for many people, and I think this is probably the last thing that neocons want to do.
Actually, America is becoming more and more anti-war. Not necessarily out of being pro-peace, but simply being war-weary of the Middle East and just wanting it to end.
Anyway... I pretty much have no choice but to vote for Obama. Anderson and Stein didn't even qualify as write-in choices in my state. And while I support Johnson more than Obama in terms of the patriot act and drug use, I think he is horrendous on fiscal policy and Social Security.
Obama is officially a better candidate than Johnson. Too much risk, not nearly enough reward for Johnson. It's a shame he's not more well known, though.
And as for the debate, my mom was upset with Biden (she's pro-Romney for some reason) thinking he was completely disrespectful. My opinion? Biden won. But the grinning was... odd.
@romney's leadership skills: ....That's hilarious.
He was a below average, or even a horrible, governor. I can't believe hardly anyone is pointing that out.
What we need is Obama. He is the man suited for the job, he's not an idiot, he hasn't run anything to the ground, even when he had the chance; but above all,
America does not need a business man for a President.
http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2012/10/11/fox-news-biden-debate_n_1960141.html
Oh the butthurt...the hilarious and insurmountable of Faux news.
Hey it s Fox News version of Joe Biden!
edited 12th Oct '12 5:54:50 AM by GearLeader
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=jXkI1sTDoEgLibya.
Believe it or not, that mattered to the rest of the world, since like it or not, most of the world is generally okay with the US playing World Police, and we showed the world stage that without Shrub at the helm, we could operate properly to overthrow a dictator, help restore peace, and effect change that, so far (and with the usual bumps and starts), appears to be for the better.
But yeah, "not being Bush" was quite a load off of the world's mind.
"Not being Bush" is highly relevant.
One of the worries about Romeny getting in, in the UK, at least, is that he might well be worse than another Bush... It lies in just how... how... ARGH he is when out of his depth in other countries.
This is how his visit to us basically went down.
Spot the security gaffe that occurred. I promise, there was one that must have made a few in both MI 5 and MI 6 want to strangle him. Not to mention the rest of the civil service as a whole. That's... quite a feat.
I'm not a great prognosticator, but seem to have called it this time: neither VP candidate did anything fatal, and neither party really lost or gained. Whichever man you came in liking or disliking, you got few reasons to change your mind and a couple of reasons to strengthen your existing impressions. Onwards to the Tuesday "town meeting."
And Obama talks to other world leaders and other countries like they're equals. He doesn't talk down to them because he's American and knows better than they do. He doesn't dismiss other countries. He learns about before he talks about them and listens when their leaders speak.
He doesn't always agree with them and he doesn't roll over to them, but he can talk to them. He can start a dialogue. Not a bullying monologue.
Reality is that, which when you stop believing in it, doesn't go away. -Philip K. Dick

When you live on Bullshit Mountain, you don't need sources or statistics.
That's right, boys. Mondo cool.