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
Goode did have one thing right for sure,and another thing definitely more admirable than Romney or any of the current GOP.
Goode hit the nose on term limits in the Senate,really that's exactly what has to be done if anything useful can come out.
Although I agree with Stein and Anderson the most,I'd vote for Johnson because he'd be the best mediator between the conservatives and liberals in Congress. Stein and Anderson would pretty much end up exactly like the Obama they're calling out. Johnson has fewer things to lose from the current GOP in power
People like Stein or Anderson would be best in Congress
I know I'm late to this,but I just woke up after turning in right after the debate. This was the earliest I could respond.
edited 24th Oct '12 7:20:33 AM by terlwyth
Honestly, the Congressional term limits thing has come up before, and I'm going to say again what I've said before: I think it's a much worse idea than it sounds. Essentially you're getting rid of the "entrenched" power of long-term Senators and Representatives in favor of the entrenched power of lobbyists and campaign funders; it's been shown (I can't remember where) that the newer members of the current Congress tend to be the most beholden to "special interests" because they don't have the established identity to fundraise from whomever they'd like.
third party candidates only sever to shorten the gap between the 2 parties, nowadays they have no chance of winning.
Untitled Power Rangers Story![]()
But they wouldn't need to worry about identity if no Senator or Rep didn't stay long enough to gain a reputation. This'd completely destroy much of the need to cave to "special interests" just make a name.
And we wouldn't be stuck with them doing anything to stay all the time in the seat. Or at least there'd be far fewer of them being hyper-cynic R-Money like politicians from the get go.
Really that's what need in elections,candidates that promise if all other promises fail,they won't run again.
Of course it won't ever happen.
Politics is a game of building influence. It's about getting your hands in the biggest pies. It's about selling your word to the highest bidder consistent with whatever principles you adhere to. It's a very cynical process, but the advantage of sticking in it for a long time is that you gain seniority and a corresponding network of favors/quid pro quos that you can call on to get stuff done.
The 2010 interim elections could be seen as a grand experiment in dumping a bunch of newcomers into the system, and look where it got us. They formed a coalition to shout down anything that didn't match their particular worldview, and now here we are two years later with virtually nothing useful having gotten done.
"It's Occam's Shuriken! If the answer is elusive, never rule out ninjas!"yeah, there's a reason the "Running Joke" in the states is If you want to be able to afford your medical bills, Don't Get Sick
"Coffee! Coffeecoffeecoffee! Coffee! Not as strong as Meth-amphetamine, but it lets you keep your teeth!"http://www.politico.com/news/stories/1012/82810.html?hp=l2
So this appears to be Trump's BIG BOMB SHELL:
"Donald Trump said on Wednesday that if President Obama releases his college records and his passport application, the businessman will give a $5 million check to a charity of Obama’s choosing."
http://www.cnn.com/2012/10/24/us/libya-benghazi-e-mails/index.html
And in the news for actual stories. (The White House apparently knew of extremist elements 2 hours after the attacks in Bengzhai. Republicans are bashing Obama on the matter.)
edited 24th Oct '12 9:33:43 AM by PotatoesRock
Well that should be easy, right? I'm assuming that his college grades are already publicly known, so there shouldn't be any surprises there.
If I were Obama, I'd publish the documents and ask them if my campaign counts as a charity.
edited 24th Oct '12 9:33:48 AM by BestOf
Quod gratis asseritur, gratis negatur.Publish the documents and say "I don't dictate to my fellow Americans how to spend their disposable income. I haven't since I cut taxes on the middle class, and I haven't when I preserved options in the Affordable Care Act to more safely keep the insurance you already have while limiting their ability to deny you coverage for unfair reasons. Spend your five million wherever you wish, Mr. Trump."
Share it so that people can get into this conversation, 'cause we're not the only ones who think like this.How much is making Trump look like more of a jackass in front of the American public worth to you? I bet Obama could lower his net worth by more than 5 million if that response goes viral and cuts into his name-brand advertising. Some yuppies don't want to live in a million dollar condo named after the guy President Obama humiliated.
Share it so that people can get into this conversation, 'cause we're not the only ones who think like this.I'm not sure if Trump can actually be damaged any more than the flogging he got at the White House Press Correspondents' Dinner last year. People who still think highly of him after that and the birther fiasco aren't going to be swayed by anything.
edited 24th Oct '12 9:56:05 AM by BestOf
Quod gratis asseritur, gratis negatur.
he's onkly taken seriously by nutjobs who operate on the faulty logic that running a business makes you an expert on how to create jobs.
(which I've even pointed out to my friends who use it as such. Just because I know , say, the carpet market doesnt mean I would know shit about running a successful carpentry business. or know how they need to handle hiring)
edited 24th Oct '12 10:11:04 AM by Midgetsnowman

(And it doesn't help that it's being aggravated by wealthy citizens who are trying to prevent shifts in policy due to an increasing number of ethnic minorities who ain't from Europe.)
I don't know what to do, to be honest, other than to wait.
edited 24th Oct '12 6:44:21 AM by PotatoesRock