posted
OKay, it's dead as irradiated dirt around here lately but I know all loyal Flarites follow the circus that is election fever- that being said, who are you voting for and why- what are your disapointments with the candidates and what issues do you think the President (whoever it is) should focus on in the new term?
Non-Americans, you're not left out- you all have a unique perspective on this process and I'd like your opinions. How does all of this compare to your elections?
Judging from the Political Compass, you'd think we were (mostly) party-ticket Democrats, but I know taht's not the case.
Omega, where for art thou? your perspective is of particular interest as you have a more conservative (yet strangely still rational) point of view.
-------------------- Justice inclines her scales so that wisdom comes at the price of suffering. -Aeschylus, Agamemnon
Registered: Aug 2002
| IP: Logged
posted
The US election has not really troubled the news in the UK since Mitt Romney ascended to the Republican throne accompanied by the Imperial March.
As far as I can see it’s going to a dull presidential election. Politically I can’t see a whole lot between them. They are both very conservative (by our standards) and both have their fans and detractors.
Obama got in, not least because he wasn’t GWB. He’s smart, he’s cool and he’s level headed. He has not been able to implement his big ticket ideas but he did get Bin Laden and he is stimulating manufacturing (if not the economy).
Romney is a member of what is seen by most to be a slightly odd religion – although he’s not a Muslim (boogy-woogy-wooooo!). Ahem. He’s got some, but not much, experience in the cut and thrust of politics. The pros are that he is not a tea-bagger, his prior support of healthcare as a senator and his business acumen.
The cons are his religion, he is a tad more authoritarian and to the right than Obama appears to be and the fact that he is also very conservative in his business dealings. And, most importantly, you can’t connect with him on a personal level because he’s obscenely rich and always has been. He’s the David Cameron of US politics at the moment, and that is no compliment.
It’s a hard one to decide though – Obama could easily be a 1 term president. He got in because he was someone different and he was offering change. Bush got out as an unpopular (although oddly not that unpopular) but lucky president – he was in during the good times, while setting up the bad times. And that is Obamas problem – he got in just as the shit hit the fan (financially speaking that it).
If I had to make a bet I’d put my money on Obama just getting it. It will probably be close, but ultimately the level of dissatisfaction with Obama will not be enough to give Mitt the victory. He’s just too rich. Not that Obama is a pauper, but Mitt is just really, really rich. I can see him in Scrooge McDuck’s money bin in a stripy swim suit – I don’t want to see this, but I can.
-------------------- I have plenty of experience in biology. I bought a Tamagotchi in 1998... And... it's still alive.
Registered: Apr 2005
| IP: Logged
-------------------- "This is why you people think I'm so unknowable. You don't listen!" - God, "God, the Devil and Bob"
Registered: Mar 1999
| IP: Logged
-------------------- Justice inclines her scales so that wisdom comes at the price of suffering. -Aeschylus, Agamemnon
Registered: Aug 2002
| IP: Logged
posted
I would love to find where on this political compass I sit. I mean...I think I know whereabouts I am, but if there's a tool that does it for me, all the better!
To the topic at hand though, I'll be voting for President Obama (I know, Sean can vote. What a scary thought.) Although I am a registered Democrat, I've voted for Republicans in the past, so my allegiance is not set one way or the other. Right now, as a college student my main interests are having some form of decent health care once I have to go out into the world and am no longer covered by my parents insurance, and being able to afford and eventually pay off my student loans. President Obama, and the Democratic viewpoint in general offer that at the moment. And then there's the whole issue of same-sex marriage, which I know for a fact would not see any support or progression under an administration led by Mitt Romney.
As far as the economy is concerned...he was handed a steaming pile of shit, and has thus far attempted to make something out of it. Probably not the best job in the world, but I have absolutely no faith that Romney could have, or would in the future.
-------------------- "Kosh, I'd like to introduce you to our Resident schmuck and his side kick Kick Me."-Ritten
"Fighting for peace is like screwing for virginity". -George Carlin
Registered: Jul 2007
| IP: Logged
posted
As best I can tell, the Democrats have no competency to address the problems we face. Unfortunately, the Republicans have no interest in addressing those problems.
If cities would start adopting approval voting for local elections, we'd have some hope of breaking the deadlock. But not until then.
-------------------- "This is why you people think I'm so unknowable. You don't listen!" - God, "God, the Devil and Bob"
Registered: Mar 1999
| IP: Logged
quote:Originally posted by Omega: As best I can tell, the Democrats have no competency to address the problems we face. Unfortunately, the Republicans have no interest in addressing those problems.
If cities would start adopting approval voting for local elections, we'd have some hope of breaking the deadlock. But not until then.
Well, It seems the Republicans are more interested in "their team" winning than what is good for the people they supposedly represent- that equal pay bill for example that ot a single republican voted for. Fuck, i'd guess taht most of them think it's long overde but the party is stuck marching lock-step to the right: the Chamber of Commerce or NRA or Koch Brother work Karl Rove will happily run attack ads against anyone daring to put what's best for the cuountry over the party.
And no, the disuniy of the Democratic party is not much better- no matter what the cause, a third of the party votes against it to please their state's special interests- coal, oil, whatever.
Every time the President has tried to comprimise, he's been publicly shot down my Mcconnell and his assholes- and his party wont back him up
-------------------- Justice inclines her scales so that wisdom comes at the price of suffering. -Aeschylus, Agamemnon
Registered: Aug 2002
| IP: Logged
posted
It almost makes me think that we'd function better with a party system similar to parliamentary states like Canada or the UK...you're forced to vote along party lines, and the party that's in power gets to say how things go. Liberals are in power? Cool. We get liberal policies until they're voted of office. Conservatives are in power? Same deal. The fact that one or another was voted into office shows that the general public was unhappy with the previous administration, and was ready for a shift in the other direction.
Here we just can't stop bickering long enough to get anything done. The fact that a liberal administration was elected after 8 years of a conservative administration probably means that the majority of the voting populace is in the mood for more liberal policies...hence more liberal policies should be enacted, not fought for tooth and nail.
-------------------- "Kosh, I'd like to introduce you to our Resident schmuck and his side kick Kick Me."-Ritten
"Fighting for peace is like screwing for virginity". -George Carlin
Registered: Jul 2007
| IP: Logged
posted
Herein the states, Gerrymandering would let any party with such absolute control stay in power forever. Really, only the fickle nature of the US voter may balance the scales against unlimited special interest money: we already see FOXNews as such mouthpieces for the rupublicans taht they censor news that would make that party look bad- glossing over scandals and inappropriate comments from "their side" and fixating on any scandal the left stumbles into- to the point of FOX giring such slanderers as Andrew Brietbart and James O'Keefe to manufactuer heavily edited videos to keep their ratings up and to undermine any they feel their "enemy"
Roger ailes, FOX's president is unapologetic about this....while railing against the so-called "liberal media".
Political ideology aside, it's all about money and power- the real disconnect in Washington is not between the two parties but between the haves and have-nots, with the number one goal of any elected official to get re-elected, not to represent the voters of their states.
Registered: Aug 2002
| IP: Logged
posted
With Romney putting his foot in his mouth as much as he does it is an interesting thing.
FB does change a lot of things.
-------------------- "You are a terrible human, Ritten." Magnus "Urgh, you are a sick sick person..." Austin Powers A leek too, pretty much a negi.....
Registered: Sep 2000
| IP: Logged
posted
What did you guys think of the debate tonight? Romney was looking pretty aggressive up there but the fact checkers are tearing into him now...
-------------------- Justice inclines her scales so that wisdom comes at the price of suffering. -Aeschylus, Agamemnon
Registered: Aug 2002
| IP: Logged
![[Smile]](smile.gif)
Printer-friendly view of this topic
