General Politics Thread

[MATRIX 2]

if you really want to fix the federal government:

term limits for congressmen
repeal citizens united
and I would even make a presidency last 1 term- 6 years

If you want to fix the problem with politics in the USA you need better people to run for office so that you have better politicians. And non of this can occur with uninformed voters. So in the end you need a better class of voter.

#1 won't happen since there are too many career politicians already in the system.
#2 Is unlikely to happen because the public won't put the pressure on the politicians due to ignorance.
#3 Is rather stupid and undermines not only our entire executive history but possible attempts to place term limits on congressmembers. 2 4 years terms is fine, if people were actually informed, and 3rd parties were more of a factor.

And yes I know what Romney's tax plan entails. I also know he can be controlled by the will of congress which is partially affected by their constituents. Nobody knows exactly what Obama will try to accomplish with 4 more years, other than being a lame duck president. Oh and the march towards 20trillion in debt isn't appealing either.

[Sub-stance1]

Term limits for congressman is something that pretty much everybody seems to agree on- yet it never happens. It's one of those things where no session of congress would ever pass (since it hurts them) unless there were pitchforks and torches outside the capitol building.

I'd also be interested in seeing a sort of one term presidency. That'd be interesting..

Could we also agree on putting a campaign contribution and spending cap?

You cam blame the supreme court for that one. The president seemed to be against it.

[DayWalker]

This hasn't happened in forever.

ever?

If you want to fix the problem with politics in the USA you need better people to run for office so that you have better politicians. And non of this can occur with uninformed voters. So in the end you need a better class of voter.

#1 won't happen since there are too many career politicians already in the system.
#2 Is unlikely to happen because the public won't put the pressure on the politicians due to ignorance.
#3 Is rather stupid and undermines not only our entire executive history but possible attempts to place term limits on congressmembers. 2 4 years terms is fine, if people were actually informed, and 3rd parties were more of a factor.

And yes I know what Romney's tax plan entails. I also know he can be controlled by the will of congress which is partially affected by their constituents. Nobody knows exactly what Obama will try to accomplish with 4 more years, other than being a lame duck president. Oh and the march towards 20trillion in debt isn't appealing either.

[MATRIX 2]

Is that the best response you've got.

[Sub-stance1]

Is that the best response you've got.

You really don't get it do you? Do you even know what partisan means?

[MATRIX 2]

You really don't get it do you? Do you even know what partisan means?

Yes, fixated on only supporting one side regardless of what they do and whether it is right or wrong and not being able to admit when they screw up or the other side is correct.

[Morganator]

You really don't get it do you? Do you even know what partisan means?

That's easy. I'm responding to the very definition of one as I type this.

[Sub-stance1]

Yes, fixated on only supporting one side regardless of what they do and whether it is right or wrong and being able to admit when they screw up or the other side is correct.

I have given my reasons why i support one candidate over the other. I'm talking about how you seem to list what we need to do as a country then follow it up with a partisan statement. You even had the nerve to post links to cato.org about the auto bailout.. Do you even know anything about them or who they are linked to? Does the name Koch Brothers ring a bell? Do you think anyone who they give funds to or associates with is gonna agree with much the president will ever do. If we are going to move forward in this country we have to get the big money out of politics. This goes for both sides.

That's easy. I'm responding to the very definition of one as I type this.

You still upset because Paul will never be president. Get over it. I'm still waiting on that so called surprise you claim Paul was gonna give everyone.

[MATRIX 2]

I have given my reasons why i support one candidate over the other. I'm talking about how you seem to list what we need to do as a country then follow it up with a partisan statement. You even had the nerve to post links to cato.org about the auto bailout.. Do you even know anything about them or who they are linked to? Does the name Koch Brothers ring a bell? Do you think anyone who they give funds to or associates with is gonna agree with much the president will ever do. If we are going to move forward in this country we have to get the big money out of politics. This goes for both sides.

Cato is a libertarian think tank. You may have had a point if I used Heritage or another undeniably biased source. But Cato is about as neutral as a political think tank can be.

And they leveled a significant amount of criticism on the Bush presidency, so your claims of them being partisan to one side don't really hold up.

I'd like to see you list what think tank/org you consider to be unbiased that would be worth posting links from. (and I'm not referring to MSM media)

Regarding your last point, Obama could lead by example. But he and his party have put nearly a billion dollars into this election. What does that say?

http://www.opensecrets.org/pres12/index.php#out



http://www.washingtonpost.com/politi...4dU_story.html



But even that doesn't really matter. Why? Because people can't handle/deal with the truth.

Taxes must increase. Cuts have to be made across the board, nothing is off the table. Everyone must suffer for a period of time in order to solve this issue.

But they won't vote for these kinds of changes. Because the largest cuts will have to come from the entitlement programs. And those voters are too stubborn to make the cuts that are necessary because they will have to suffer.

[Sub-stance1]

Cato is a libertarian think tank. You may have had a point if I used Heritage or another undeniably biased source. But Cato is about as neutral as a political think tank can be.

No they aren't. They have continuously donated large sums of money to republican candidates dating back to 1997. They also donate to Americans for prosperity and they are linked to the Tea Party. Just because they are libertarian doesn't mean they can't be partisan.

And they leveled a significant amount of criticism on the Bush presidency, so your claims of them being partisan to one side don't really hold up.

Criticizing someone and supporting someone are two different things. I know people who criticize Obama and Romney but will never vote for one over the other.

I'd like to see you list what think tank/org you consider to be unbiased that would be worth posting links from. (and I'm not referring to MSM media)

There are plenty out there for "fact checking".

Regarding your last point, Obama could lead by example. But he and his party have put nearly a billion dollars into this election. What does that say?

it says you didn't comprehend what i posted because I clearly stated that it happens on both sides.

Taxes must increase. Cuts have to be made across the board, nothing is off the table. Everyone must suffer for a period of time in order to solve this issue.

I wouldn't say suffer but they should contribute more if they are in a position to.

But they won't vote for these kinds of changes. Because the largest cuts will have to come from the entitlement programs. And those voters are too stubborn to make the cuts that are necessary because they will have to suffer.

It's not all on the voters. It more about the leaders.

[MATRIX 2]

No they aren't. They have continuously donated large sums of money to republican candidates dating back to 1997. They also donate to Americans for prosperity and they are linked to the Tea Party.



Criticizing someone and supporting someone are two different things. I know people who criticize Obama and Romney but will never vote for one over the other.


There are plenty out there for "fact checking".


it says you are partisan and didn't comprehend what i posted because I clearly stated that it happens on both sides.




I wouldn't say suffer but they should contribute more if they are in a position to.

It's not all on the voters. It more about the leaders.

You still neglected to post specific names. How is one supposed to pick an organization to post evidence from if everything is suspect. Even the "neutral" fact checking sites (which mostly only focus on small tidbits or truths/lies and not major pieces of legislation)

I comprehended exactly what you posted. Obama has the perfect opportunity to act on this, yet does nothing. Doesn't even discuss it outside of the SOTU. Why would I want to vote for a person like that to gain a second term. That's the thing about obama. He like to talk about this and that, but when it comes down to the time to take action he either backs off or compromises so much that he essentially accomplishes nothing. It would be one think if he actually stuck to his principles (if he actually even has any) and defended them even if he faces significant opposition. At least a person could commend him for that, but Obama doesn't even do that.

Even the hardcore progressives admit this (the ones that can handle the truth at least). They realize Obama really supports nothing and just ends up compromising all the time which accomplishes nothing. That he is actually hurting their movement. But they have no choice in who they can vote for since they would sooner die than vote for a candidate on the opposite side even if it is better for their interests in the long term.

Clearly you aren't comprehending what I'm saying if you think I mean "suffering" as paying a little more for those that can.

I mean suffering in the purest form. Every program will be cut, defense, entitlements, spending on education, infrastructure, ect. Everything. And everyone will feel it. And it likely won't do any good for the economy or unemployment. But it must be done.

It's not about the "rich' paying a little more, or "their fair share". Everyone will bleed, perhaps not equally, but nobody will escape unscathed.

Last I check "leaders" have to court voters every number of years for reelection. Yet people vote in the same or similar candidates that spew the same old lines of, XX is the problem and must suffer, but you guys here are just fine.

Very few people have the balls to essentially "bleed for a bit" for the betterment of the country as a whole. Seniors aren't going to vote voluntarily for cuts in SS/Medicare/Medicaid.

Their line of thinking is: I've paid my amount and I'll get the full benefit, the future of the country be dammed. (They won't be around to see the results anyways) It is similar to the reasons why GM/Chrysler have such a hard time competing (pension costs).

I'll say this, suppose a president were to be elected that would do all these things (and lets assume that nobody would stop/impede him from doing so while he was in office).

Do you think such a president would get more than 1 term in office. Hell no. The voters won't allow it and will vote for somebody else that tells them the lies they want to hear.

Just look at what happened to Jimmy Carter.

And what will likely to happen to Obama. (should he win a second term, unlike Carter)


You want to start? Try doing the 1st thing that makes sense and has a decent chance of being passed. An amendment that mandates a balanced budget (except perhaps in the most dire situations, which would require something like ~80% over support to temporarily suspend/overturn)

All the other stuff won't happen as long as the same people are in DC barring a unanimous revolt by the populace.

[Morganator]

You still upset because Paul will never be president. Get over it. I'm still waiting on that so called surprise you claim Paul was gonna give everyone.

Man, would you just stfu about him already? The surprise already happened and it was exposing how corrupt you dems and pubs are. By the way, your lord and master is in deep.

[claud3]

Man, would you just stfu about him already? The surprise already happened and it was exposing how corrupt you dems and pubs are. By the way, your lord and master is in deep.

Mate mate, relaxed

He is just voicing his opinion... like everyone

Yes I disagree with repeat aspects of his posts... but a bit harsh on the STFU part

[Sub-stance1]

You still neglected to post specific names. How is one supposed to pick an organization to post evidence from if everything is suspect. Even the "neutral" fact checking sites (which mostly only focus on small tidbits or truths/lies and not major pieces of legislation)

I did. You just didn't catch on.

I comprehended exactly what you posted. Obama has the perfect opportunity to act on this, yet does nothing. Doesn't even discuss it outside of the SOTU. Why would I want to vote for a person like that to gain a second term. That's the thing about obama. He like to talk about this and that, but when it comes down to the time to take action he either backs off or compromises so much that he essentially accomplishes nothing. It would be one think if he actually stuck to his principles (if he actually even has any) and defended them even if he faces significant opposition. At least a person could commend him for that, but Obama doesn't even do that.

He talked about repealing DADT and did it.
pursuing bin laden
ending the war in Iraq responsibly
affordable health care
increased veteran benefits
provided more federal funding for science and research labs
cut missile defense program
Set troop pullout in Afghan
Add jobs to the economy
Provided funding to Head Start and Early Head Start programs in 2009
Enacted largest reform of student aid in 40 years
provided means for struggling students struggling to make college loan payments to refinance
Expanded pell grants for low- income students
US auto rescue
signed the Worker, Homeownership, and Business Assistance Act of 2009
Passed the Lilly Ledbetter fair pay act in 2009
Ended the previous stop-loss policy that kept soldiers in Iraq/Afghanistan longer than their enlistment date
Ordered Seal operation that resulted in the relese of US captain held by somali pirates
leading the recovery effort from hurricane sandy.


Looks like he took plenty of action to me. Now what has our congress done?
He hasn't kept all his promises but he has accomplished some things that are important to a lot of Americans.

Even the hardcore progressives admit this (the ones that can handle the truth at least). They realize Obama really supports nothing and just ends up compromising all the time which accomplishes nothing. That he is actually hurting their movement. But they have no choice in who they can vote for since they would sooner die than vote for a candidate on the opposite side even if it is better for their interests in the long term.

He did compromise on some things but he came through on big things too. Don't forget dealing with congress is no easy task. Especially when they take a vow to try to stop everything you will do and focus on making you a one term president before you have even been sworn in.

I mean suffering in the purest form. Every program will be cut, defense, entitlements, spending on education, infrastructure, ect. Everything. And everyone will feel it. And it likely won't do any good for the economy or unemployment. But it must be done.

Cuts will happen. No doubt about that, but it will hurt but in the long run it will be for the good of the country. For instance, cuts to the military won't harm our readiness. We will continue to be the best in the world.

It's not about the "rich' paying a little more, or "their fair share". Everyone will bleed, perhaps not equally, but nobody will escape unscathed.

Obama hasn't raised taxes on the middle class. As a matter of fact he has cut them over 18 times and that includes small businesses too.

Last I check "leaders" have to court voters every number of years for reelection. Yet people vote in the same or similar candidates that spew the same old lines of, XX is the problem and must suffer, but you guys here are just fine.

Our country is divided mostly between democrats and republicans and that won't change in our life time.

Very few people have the balls to essentially "bleed for a bit" for the betterment of the country as a whole. Seniors aren't going to vote voluntarily for cuts in SS/Medicare/Medicaid.

I'm one of those few. I do my part.

I'll say this, suppose a president were to be elected that would do all these things (and lets assume that nobody would stop/impede him from doing so while he was in office).

Suppose a president just served one term without worrying about having to be reelected. There would be less politics involved.

Do you think such a president would get more than 1 term in office. Hell no. The voters won't allow it and will vote for somebody else that tells them the lies they want to hear.

Wouldn't need to worry about terms if they got elected for 1 term but with a longer duration.

And what will likely to happen to Obama. (should he win a second term, unlike Carter)

if Obama gets reelected people are still gonna play politics, but it will be less likely because the other side will have nothing to gain from it.

All the other stuff won't happen as long as the same people are in DC barring a unanimous revolt by the populace.

Yep but this is our system and it's run by big money special interest groups.

[Sub-stance1]

Man, would you just stfu about him already? The surprise already happened and it was exposing how corrupt you dems and pubs are. By the way, your lord and master is in deep.

Why because reality has finally sunk in for ya. Boy that was some surprise. Basically Paul just proved what we've known all along. He was and always will be a non factor. Just another old politician with decent ideas, but a little on the creepy side.

[DayWalker]

Man, would you just stfu about him already? The surprise already happened and it was exposing how corrupt you dems and pubs are. By the way, your lord and master is in deep.

this from the guy who said that RP was gonna take the convention by storm- "just wait" ???

[weskurtz81]

Interesting, all the jobs being added are bottom of the barrel service jobs, nothing of any real substance.

[DayWalker]

Interesting, all the jobs being added are bottom of the barrel service jobs, nothing of any real substance.

yes very interesting

It's not just a low-wage recovery
http://money.cnn.com/2012/11/01/news...obs/index.html

[Sub-stance1]

yes very interesting

It's not just a low-wage recovery
http://money.cnn.com/2012/11/01/news...obs/index.html

I knew it wasn't.

[weskurtz81]

Don Q. and Sancho Panza.... when one posts the other one is sure to follow!

I may have misspoke a little when I said "all" the jobs, should have said "most".... here is another article on the topic.

http://www.washingtonpost.com/blogs/...-u-s-recovery/

[DeviousOne]

cant wait for this to be over this election shit is annoying me......

[claud3]

Totally agree. But it has brought out the best debate I have ever seen in a long long time on the forum

And congrats to all in this thread for this hot debate

And not threatening to fire bomb each other's houses and send dolphins in to rape them

What a relief

[-Kwesnoth-]

Got my vote in early. Lines began to get big at around 6 AM. Bout 80 people in line.

[Bio]

cant wait for this to be over this election shit is annoying me......

I personally got quite a lot out of this race. But yeah, I'm getting a little exhausted at it all now lol. I'm ready for people to complain about the the state of the US/world now instead of campaign politics.

[claud3]

Well the lines are crazy asswholes, from what I have seen on t.v


Early voting works then in some please.

The key states are the killer for long lines lol