General Politics Thread

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by DayWalker

One more point:

The problem the GOP 2012 Conteners face is the tea party.
The faction will force the candidates to race far far far to the right in order to win the nomination.

The democrats and independents will be watching and taking notes.

THEN- the eventual nominee will have to tact way way way back to the center right while walking through a mine field of all their primary statements/promises/policies.

Not an easy feat to pull off.

---

Thats how it is for every election. nomination rhetoric is always more extreme than campaign rhetoric. Obama and Clinton had a nasty bout, where McCain was taking notes, but that did not prove fruitful. It won't have as great of an impact you might think it has.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by btbam

Thats how it is for every election. nomination rhetoric is always more extreme than campaign rhetoric. Obama and Clinton had a nasty bout, where McCain was taking notes, but that did not prove fruitful. It won't have as great of an impact you might think it has.

---

Clinton and Obama wasn't a race to the far left though. In fact both candidates were quite similar which is why the race was so contentious.

That won't be the case in the GOP primary.
Romney is nothing like Paul who is not like Bachmann who is A LOT like Palin who is nothing like Palenty.

Paul won't move, Romney/Palenty/Newt CERTAINLY will... and Bachmann will push the bar as far right as she can.

I really don't think Palin will run- she knows she is unelectable... even in the Primary.
but were she to decide to do so... her popularity and likeness to Bachmann will push the bar even further right.

Gonna be interesting.

poo on Ron Paul. and i have not seen one solid argument that backs why people do not like sarah palin on these forums. she did a LOT of great things for Alaska and her hometown. if i supported a woman to run the country, i'd vote for her. but i'm not so i wouldnt

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Funeralfog

if i supported a woman to run the country, i'd vote for her. but i'm not so i wouldnt

---

:lol:

I think Obama would win just cause of the African-American Society in America and the Oprah followers. The only reason why he is president in the 1st place is cause he is black. Just like Julia Gillard, the only reason why she won is cause she's a female. A majority of the voters don't even know **** about politics. I wish in Australia it wasn't compulsory for people to vote, this way people would stop doing coin-toss choices.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by x6Teen

The only reason why he is president in the 1st place is cause he is black.

---

You would have never seen this sentence 20 years ago. lol

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by DayWalker

The Pauls are certainly interesting. I respect the fact that when they talk about cutting spending... they don't leave anything off the table (ie military and entitlements)

However I think they go too far. Too little regulation is just at dangerous as too much.
I think they subscribe to the fantasy world where corporations will regulate themselves- they won't.
And I think they don't give government regulations due credit for the standard of living (etc) we enjoy today.

On a more fun side:

Oh please let Palin and Bachmann run!!!! :lol:
Newts already good to go... we just need the other stooges to throw their hats in the rink.

Trump is a joke.

Romney... the BYU basketball controversy has reignited the country's suspicion of mormons... oh... and Romneycare laid the framework for Obamacare, and don't think his primary opponents or the tea party will let that slide

And Obama is doing fine. His approval rating is at or above where Bush Jr was (even after squandering the rally around the flag 9/11 event).

And Kerry (and many others) have already proven that you can't win just by being the other guy.

---

Solid points on all counts except the Paul family. Personally, I think their platforms are solid, especially Ron's platform. As for the rest, I'm right there with you which means... :lol:

I don't care much for Eliot Spitzer or whatever his name is, he does tend to put words in people's mouths and I am glade Ron called him out on that bull****.


http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=XrsBxKXUYjI

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=WvBZFulsKjY

I am probably going to have to change my status from Independent to Republican because I don't see any other candidate (at this point) that I would vote for over Ron Paul. I really don't like the fact that an Independent cannot vote in primaries for either party, and I think if they could you would see a lot more registered that way.... more of a free flowing system IMO.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Bigdoggy

I don't care much for Eliot Spitzer or whatever his name is, he does tend to put words in people's mouths and I am glade Ron called him out on that bull****.


http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=XrsBxKXUYjI

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=WvBZFulsKjY

---

Ron Paul is the poor man's Ross Perot

2016. Chris Christie i'm calling it

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Funeralfog

Ron Paul is the poor man's Ross Perot

---

Curious, why the dislike of RP?

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Funeralfog

2016. Chris Christie i'm calling it

---

Haven't seen much of him, but the LITTLE I have seen I have mostly liked.

A women will be president

Donald Trump. Oh yeah.

A women will run the u.s, because a history has to be broken and 2012 is it or the next election

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by claud3

A women will run the u.s, because a history has to be broken and 2012 is it or the next election

---

Nothing says it has to be broken. I'm not opposed to a female president, but i don't want one for the sake of breaking history. I would rather have competent individuals in the office, not a minority who go their on a the "token" ticket.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by weskurtz81

I am probably going to have to change my status from Independent to Republican because I don't see any other candidate (at this point) that I would vote for over Ron Paul. I really don't like the fact that an Independent cannot vote in primaries for either party, and I think if they could you would see a lot more registered that way.... more of a free flowing system IMO.

---

I'll be participating in the "Operation Chaos" 2012 :)

I envy you guys with your awesome electoral system.

All we get in Australia is the same two groups going head to head. Which is generally a douche or a turd sandwich.

Rudd was the best PM we had in ages and lots of people loved him but then the government switched him with a fricken Ginger.

That is how messed up Australia is.

You guys are lucky.

Actually- I feel that the electoral college is very outdated and needs to be scrapped.

the fact that a state can go 50.1 to 49.9... and yet someone gets ALL that state electoral votes doesn't really feel like democracy.

=====================

Edit-

The upheaval in states like WI, OH, PA, IN, MI, is going to have an impact at the ballot box as well...
A lot of anger out there right now...

Meh, the electoral college still serves a purpose, it helps ensure less populated areas and minority interests still get a voice and are represented.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by weskurtz81

Meh, the electoral college still serves a purpose, it helps ensure less populated areas and minority interests still get a voice and are represented.

---

how so?

and how does it do that better than a proportional dividing of a states electoral votes?

Dividing electoral votes? In that case you say keep the electoral college, but modify it?

It helps give minorities more of a voice because they tend to congregate in high population areas where when pooled together they are able to shift ALL of the votes one way or another, that's a lot of power.

If it was a PURE popular vote, candidates would likely worry most with appealing to the majority of the voters and mostly in densely populated areas rather than worrying as much about rural locations.

I do however understand your dislike with the current system, I just don't think the con's far out weigh the pro's like you seem to think.

I don't see your point.

right now- besides Nebraska... the popular vote decides where ALL electoral votes go. Thus the minority vote counts for nothing.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by DayWalker

I don't see your point.

right now- besides Nebraska... the popular vote decides where ALL electoral votes go. Thus the minority vote counts for nothing.

---

Besides Nebraska and Maine IIRC.

Yes, the popular votes in the states do. But, like I said, minority groups tend to group together in cities, and in populous states with high minority concentrations, they have the ability to swing ALL of the electoral votes to a candidate. So, if it were a popular vote, it would be one for one, but if minorities turned out heavy in a few states where popular vote might only have been separated by 10's of thousands of votes, all the electoral votes would go to which ever candidate the minorities voted for. It essentially gives them more power on a national election than a popular vote would, which is part of the reason candidates have to target the minority vote, because it's able to swing an entire states electoral vote (depends on the state though).

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by weskurtz81

Meh, the electoral college still serves a purpose, it helps ensure less populated areas and minority interests still get a voice and are represented.

---

horse****. no matter what every county votes. it's all up to king county and that's a fact

and whoever told you guys the tea party is just crazy right-wingers you're insane, it's FULL of independents and even democrats. it's more of a middle right-wing

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Funeralfog

and whoever told you guys the tea party is just crazy right-wingers you're insane, it's FULL of independents and even democrats. it's more of a middle right-wing

---

no.