US Elections 2012
Hi guys,
I have no idea if you're interested in politics at all, if you're thinking about voting, etc.
The major consensus in Europe seems to be: why would anyone in their right mind vote for Mitt Romney, being a Mormon, anti abortion, etc.
I admit I am a total n00b when it comes to American politics, so I'm sure I'll say dumbass things, but I just wanted to see if anyone can shed some light on this topic.
Back in 2004, people outside the US (and probably inside as well) raised their eyebrows and just couldn't believe Bush was chosen for a second term. I believe this will probably happen again if Romney is elected... a big WTF from across the pond.
I have no idea if you're interested in politics at all, if you're thinking about voting, etc.
The major consensus in Europe seems to be: why would anyone in their right mind vote for Mitt Romney, being a Mormon, anti abortion, etc.
I admit I am a total n00b when it comes to American politics, so I'm sure I'll say dumbass things, but I just wanted to see if anyone can shed some light on this topic.
Back in 2004, people outside the US (and probably inside as well) raised their eyebrows and just couldn't believe Bush was chosen for a second term. I believe this will probably happen again if Romney is elected... a big WTF from across the pond.
Sign in to comment in this discussion.
Comments
Running a country should be based on facts and not on stories, but that's just me.
More bluntly, the more religious candidates tend to be anti-women, anti-LGBT, and anti-science. And they mask it under the veneer of being pro-life, pro-family, and pro-religion. Basically, I'm not cool with that. Whenever there's a super-religious candidate who doesn't have those stances, I'll alter my opinion.
I consider myself super religous, but the GOP would probably consider me a heathen
This is why I put the "candidates" bit in there. For some reason, it seems that politics brings out the worst of religion. As soon as a guy or gal gets up to that podium, it's like all that stuff about loving your neighbor and trying to live a good life gives way to new and creative ways of using religious texts to outcast more people.
And the worst thing is, is that normally fine, moderate religious people lap it up. They see pro-life or Catholic or pro-family on the voting ticket and blindly vote for whoever snapped up that stance without even considering the rest of the package.
I'd be happier if candidates were forbidden to reveal their religion in the election. Just to make things more about the issues.
I wonder if religious right people would have supported George Bush Jr's war policies as strongly if he'd never reveals his faith.
I wonder if they'd support most things as much if religion weren't involved. A lot of the commonly held "religious" stances don't even have much of a basis in the religious background. All I can think of is that they must be using that new-fangled Bible from 2010 with the motorcycle chase and Mary choosing not to get an abortion.
Exactly my sort of man.
I can never remember, which one are the republicans? Romney & Co?
The general consensus over here is that Obama has been a good president. Far better than Bush. It's great seeing him taking an active stance on Gay rights (should everyone suffer because a fanatical religious minority think they are the devil incarnate? No.), His attempt to bring decent healthcare to the states (If you saw the Opening ceremony of the olympics, you'll see how much we appreciate our health service.) was admirable, even if it did ultimately fail (for reasons I don't know). His office has also helped to change the image of "Annoying dumb americans" perpetuated by Bush's office to one which sees you as being more intelligent and civilised. Respectable members of the international community, not just rich kids, bullying everyone else in the playground.
I don't know what his policy is like in the US, but I often see people moaning because the economy isn't fixed yet, claiming he's done nothing in his four years of office. And I feel I should add that the same is true for practically every country who suffered difficulties (Germany was faring well, but they are an exception to the rule), no matter which route out they took: Borrowing or repaying.
Also, everyone is sick about hearing about the US presidential race all the time on our news. I'm curious did you get lots of coverage during the UK elections a couple of years back? Probably not.
Good job, you don't count.
All politicians are fakes, fakes that market themselves either to voter a or voter b.
I am yet to meet a sincere politician and am very much of the mindset there is no such thing, no matter how good their intentions may have been when they stepped into the game.
Nobody is sincere. It's the human race, everyone lies, is deceitful or at best, can't tell the whole truth.
We sorta need somebody better than Joe Bloggs sitting in the White House. Sure you and I are dishonest shitheads, fair play, we're human and that's normal. The man in charge of the most powerful nation on Earth shouldn't be and cannot be.
Could never put it better myself, the very desire to be a politician should disqualify you from ever being one.
The very nature of our political system illustrates the fact that the founding fathers believed no one to be really good. Since all men are inherently self interested, and because self interests can be deemed 'good' only by those who fall on the side of a particular politician and 'bad' by those opposed, it's best to set opposing self interests against each other. Thus arises the House-Senate balance as well as the general system of checks and balances.
Aren't you guys first-past-the-post? Presumably (and please correct me if i've got this wrong as I haven't studied US Politics since school) that leaves you with a strong government and plenty of representatives to tow the incumbents party line in the house? And if so, how are checks and balances any real benefit?
The fact that the executive seat (president) is usually run by a different party from the legislature (Senate and House) means it usually forces compromise. The U.S. is, indeed, in a period of irrational lack of compromise, but that hasn't usually been the case. Democrats control the presidential seat and senate, but since republicans control the house, they'll have to work with each other and address each others' concerns if they want to make any progress.
If the system doesn't make sense to you, that's probably because it really is nonsensical. Basically if you live a state where most people support a different party, your vote pretty much doesn't count. To me it seems incredibly unfair. Should be one person equals one vote, and all votes carry equal weight.
I'd call former Senator Bob Brown a sincere politician, or at least as close as you can get to it (though he's probably one of a sadly small group). He's a medically trained environmentalist and openly gay. He started out as a leader of the Franklin Dam protest, a watershed (heh) case for the protection of old-growth rainforests. He spent 19 days in jail for that protest.
He's won the Australian Peace Prize, the Humanist of the Year prize, and once contributed $100,000 of his own money to help free an Australian photojournalist who was held hostage in Somalia for over a year.
At least outwardly, he spent his entire career standing up for things he believes in instead of pandering to the popular vote, and I'm proud that I come from a country where a man like Bob Brown can be a successful politician.
The founding fathers would argue that this can't possibly be true. If the majority of a nation's population concentrated in one state, for example, then the needs of that state would outweigh the needs of all others on the basis that it is weighted toward that state. The electoral college serves a few purposes. First, the fathers really didn't think the general population could be trusted anyway. But further, popular support has to be distributed across the nation as opposed to within a single state. It's why Obama can have populous states on his side but still be dancing the tango with Romney who has less populous states on his. The electoral college requires the formation of coalitions within the states and appeals to multiple states as opposed to a few. If you're a minority, the electoral college is doubly important because it enhances the status of your vote.Given their lower numbers, they nevertheless retain a key presence in concentrated districts where they can have influence on influential districts. This means it requires addressing their issues, as they can help swing a state.