The USA Political Thread

[lennco]

Here you can spout your USA political views.

Rules:
1. Keep it clean
2. No fighting
3. Respect the views of others.
4. US Political views, No Religious views
5. Have fun

:wave:

 

[JB Lions]

Actually fox does a better job of reporting about obama and biden.
Telling the truth more often than msnbc.

You just contradicted your previous post. Unless you think FOX isn't mainstream media? And FOX is a known joke with it comes to fair and balanced coverage. Unless you hate Obama/Dems, then they're the truth.

 

[iowadawg]

See how you are?
Making things up.

I never said fox was part of msm.

You and reid must be soul mates.

 

[JB Lions]

"I never said fox was part of msm."

Nobody needs you to say it, it's not something up for debate. Of couse Fox is mainstream media.

 

[Ms Domainer]

For the past 60 years the American people likes to alternate parties every 8 years with the exception of Carters term (4years) and the Reagan/Bush terms (12years)
Eisenhower (R) 8 years
Kennedy/ Johnson (D) 8 years
Nixon/Ford (R) 8 years
Clinton (D) 8 years
G.W. Bush (R) 8 years

*

Um, Kennedy/Johnson was in office not quite three years.

Kennedy was assassinated before he could run again.

Nixon resigned in 1974, not even two years into his second term.

*

 

[lennco]

*

Um, Kennedy/Johnson was in office not quite three years.

Kennedy was assassinated before he could run again.

Nixon resigned in 1974, not even two years into his second term.

*

Yes I know.
But Johnson as well as Ford continued on the administration as well as any VP that takes over for a President that leaves or dies in office.

That is why I used a "/" with them.

 

[Ms Domainer]

Yes I know.
But Johnson as well as Ford continued on the administration as well as any VP that takes over for a President that leaves or dies in office.

That is why I used a "/" with them.

*

I don't think you can lump two different administrations together, even from the same party.

Johnson was very different from Johnson; Ford was very different from Nixon.

Had Kennedy lived, things may have turned out very different, the Vietnam war probably would have ended sooner. Kennedy's learning curve seemed to be shorter than Johnson's.

Of course, we'll never know.

Of course Obama has not been able to effect true change, especially after 2010; he has had to deal with an obstructionist, do-nothing Congress that has had party interests above the interests of the American people. Whenever he tries to reach across the aisle, the Boehners and Bachmans have done everything possible to stomp on anything that Obama tries, and it's all for political reasons and to accomplish one goal: to oust Obama. They don't give a sh*t that this country is drowning. They just want power so that they and their cronies can get richer and pay fewer taxes.

And if you think a bunch of rich guys are going to create jobs and help the lower and middle classes, I have news for you. Rich people look after themselves, their business interests, and their friends. The Democrats aren't perfect (far from it), but at least they are trying to force business and banking to be accountable when they get too greedy.

The private sector needs to be legislated, including heavy tariffs when they ship jobs overseas. Sure, they can move their firms abroad and not do business at home, but there will be others who will build their businesses at home and hire people living in the U.S.

In my opinion, it's not enough to re-elect Obama, but to elect a Democratic majority in both Congress and the Senate.

Then let's see what can get done in the next 4 years.

At that point, if the Democrats can't deliver, then vote Republican (or whatever).

But as long as we have this stalemate, it's business as usual, and we all lose.

Yes, I want to see Romney's taxes for the last 15 years, before he has had a chance to scrub his tax status "clean."

It IS relevant because I want to know if a person who is running for President of the United States is paying his fair share of taxes (and I don't think 13% is a fair share).

And by digging in his heels, I have to think he has something to hide.

I'm going to leave it at that; I know how I'll be voting in November, and I'm not likely to change my mind.

I certainly don't expect to change anyone else's mind, either.

:blink:

*

 

[GILSAN]

First off, if there was a drinking game for this thread, where we all took a shot, everytime you mentioned MSM, we would all be dead from alcohol poisoning.

GOOD! :tu: I'm very happy to see you and some others getting alcohol poisoning thanks to my irritating insistence on the stupid Liberal MSM. Now lets get something clear, I don't wish anyone dying from this poisoning because I want to see all the Liberals alive come November, when Obama gets his ass kicked all the way back to Chicago where he can go and help his buddy Rahm Emanuel make sure that Chick-fil-A doesn't open their business in the Windy City.

You keep posting stuff you know is false for some reason, and that's not a good look for you.

False? You must be suffering from the initial symptoms of alcohol poisoning.

Of course you're going to be hearing more about Ryan now, because he's the new guy on the scene. They'll be digging up everything they can on him, just like they did with Obama and Palin.

Palin was crucified and buried alive by the Liberal Media. Obama was the Politically Correct choice over a much better candidate; Hillary Clinton. Everything Obama did was great, according to the MSM and Hillary was punished in the process.

Obama even got a NOBEL Peace prize. UNBELIEVABLE! What's amazing is that Obama was nominated by the Nobel Academy as one of the candidates, BEFORE he was even elected President. :o That was another blatantly Politically Correct choice. Like I said many times before Obama has had his ass kissed by the MSM for 5 years, so its time to teach him and especially the MSM a good lesson.

I hope the alcohol poisoning has gotten a little worse after this post. :]

 

[lennco]

*

I don't think you can lump two different administrations together, even from the same party.

Johnson was very different from Johnson; Ford was very different from Nixon.

Had Kennedy lived, things may have turned out very different, the Vietnam war probably would have ended sooner. Kennedy's learning curve seemed to be shorter than Johnson's.

Of course, we'll never know.

*

The Johnson and Ford administration both came from of the Kennedy and Nixon administrations.
They are both continuations regardless that they may have governed differently.

They were both a continuation of their parties which was my original point.
If you re-read my post again you will see that I was speaking about the 8 year cycle of both parties with the exception of Carters term (4years) and the Reagan/Bush terms (12years)

 

[JB Lions]

"Palin was crucified and buried alive by the Liberal Media."

And by anybody with a brain, she was a disaster. Probably the worst VP pick ever.

"Hillary was punished in the process."

But, but she was a democrat, I thought the media didn't go after Dems.

And as we've went over already, I guess you didn't watch the last election. Media went after Obama big time as well, for you to deny that would be to deny reality. If you did, at least you're consistent. Give me something you think they missed with your next post.

And of course, you keep failing to find me something you think the MSM is not covering about Obama, why is that? Also, your media sources, the ones you think are getting it right, which ones are those?

 

[GILSAN]

"Palin was crucified and buried alive by the Liberal Media."

And by anybody with a brain, she was a disaster. Probably the worst VP pick ever.

"Hillary was punished in the process."

But, but she was a democrat, I thought the media didn't go after Dems.

And as we've went over already, I guess you didn't watch the last election. Media went after Obama big time as well, for you to deny that would be to deny reality. If you did, at least you're consistent. Give me something you think they missed with your next post.

And of course, you keep failing to find me something you think the MSM is not covering about Obama, why is that? Also, your media sources, the ones you think are getting it right, which ones are those?

When Obama and Hillary were fighting for the Democratic Leadership over 4 years ago there was a thread here that covered that. I participated quite frequently in that thread and I remember very well how the Media were so biased against Hillary, which really pissed me off because that's not the way its meant to be. Journalists are meant to be impartial, not politically correct.

When Obama battled it out against against McCain, once more the Liberal Media which seems to dominate over the Conservative Media took sides once again. Obama was their ass kissing darling.

I have no problem in the media going after Conservatives as long as they do the same against Liberals with the same vigor and force. Only a brainwashed or blind person doesn't see the amount of bias against the conservatives. The journalists back in the Nixon days were true journalists. Today they have no balls. They just know how to kiss ass, especially Obama's.

I've said it before and I'll say it again; I don't trust politicians, but its a double tragedy when you can't trust journalists to give you unbiased reporting. That, to me is even worse than the crooked Politicians and Bankers.

"I guess you didn't watch the last election. Media went after Obama big time as well,"

That's not true; The media hardly touched him. They protected and continues to protect Obama. I watched the whole election process in 2008 and anyone who isn't biased or brainwashed by the MSM will agree with me, perhaps not on this thread, since it seems it's mostly liberals that post here, which is a pity as the balance weights too much to one side when in fact it should be closer to 50-50.

Sometimes I find it strange that I, a foreigner, along with iowadawg are the only ones who agree that the Politically Correct Liberal MSM are a bunch of useless cowards, whose only objective is to make sure that Obummer is elected again, by hook or by crook, just like in 2008.

 

[iowadawg]

Liberals, one can not argue with them.
Because they like free speech, but it has to be their free speech.
Because they will call you racist.
Because they will yell and scream and then boycott you.

Why I just leave them to their own world.
Which really is my wife and most of her family!
Damn, how did a nice barely conservative Texan who is related to the said LBJ end up marrying a wonderful woman from Iowa who happens to be a DID (Damn Iowa Democrat)?

PS...do read my blog, the first one in my sig file. I find the truth out there so that it can be told.

 

[JB Lions]

"The media hardly touched him."

Right, I didn't hear anything about Obama last election. Didn't hear about all that church stuff, or stupid stuff like he didn't put his hand over his heart or who he hung out with in college, or Bill Ayers, or where he was born..........

And I guess this media you have a problem with didn't exist when Bush was President 8 years in a row, even losing the popular vote.

Again, is there a media source out there you think is fair, that you like? Or are they all bad. And if there is even 1 you like, can you finally name it?

Liberals, one can not argue with them.
Because they like free speech, but it has to be their free speech.
Because they will call you racist.
Because they will yell and scream and then boycott you.

Why I just leave them to their own world.
Which really is my wife and most of her family!
Damn, how did a nice barely conservative Texan who is related to the said LBJ end up marrying a wonderful woman from Iowa who happens to be a DID (Damn Iowa Democrat)?

PS...do read my blog, the first one in my sig file. I find the truth out there so that it can be told.

Yes, I check the site out and the very first thing I see is a link to Newsweek with the cover: Shocking Newsweek Cover: 'Hit the Road, Barack - Why We Need a New President'

Oh, look, another example of liberal media going after everybody.

Here's what it is. It's weakness from the right, blaming the media because you put up crap candidates. Sarah Palin. Seriously, iowadawg or Gilsan. You can picture her as President?

And then you have a retread in Romney and he makes the same mistake as last time, picked a far right VP candidate. Pure incompetence. It's funny with Rage Against the Machine being Ryan's favorite band and their response: "At the heart of Morello's distaste for Ryan is "his guiding vision of shifting revenue more radically to the one percent." He goes on to say Ryan has plenty of "rage," but claims its "A rage against women, a rage against immigrants, a rage against workers, a rage against gays, a rage against the poor, a rage against the environment."

It is 2012, you're still in knuckles dragging the ground territory with those far right views. While America shifts, the party stays stuck in it's failed ideology. But you can always blame the media. Watch the vote this year, when it's even bigger than last time, will that finally be a wake up call?

You think this is going to fly with voters:

http://thecaucus.blogs.nytimes.com/...-to-critics-reaffirm-findings-on-romney-plan/

No.

 

[DU]

Yes, I check the site out and the very first thing I see is a link to Newsweek with the cover: Shocking Newsweek Cover: 'Hit the Road, Barack - Why We Need a New President'

I see a blog post that is copied verbatim from other blog posts... for example:

http://townhall.com/tipsheet/katehicks/2012/08/19/newsweek_hit_the_road_barack

To the "author" (not JBL))

If you can't be bothered to write your own opinion I have to believe that either (a) You didn't read the article, (b) Are lazy plagiarist, or (c) Just A Sheeple.

I don't give a shit if you're a lib, dem, anarchist or a communist. If you're going to blog on something have your own frickin' opinion before asking us to read it.

Don't you people have any original thoughts? Any analysis or do you just read what sounds good and copy it?

 

[GILSAN]

"The media hardly touched him."

Right, I didn't hear anything about Obama last election. Didn't hear about all that church stuff, or stupid stuff like he didn't put his hand over his heart or who he hung out with in college, or Bill Ayers, or where he was born..........

Yea, from the way you write, you sound as if you were upset that some of the media had the audacity and was virtually forced to talk about that "stupid stuff" as you call it... yes that was very upsetting.

And I guess this media you have a problem with didn't exist when Bush was President 8 years in a row, even losing the popular vote.

I have to agree with you about the part about Bush winning despite losing the popular vote. Never understood that myself. That shows there is a big flaw in the US electoral process. Personally I thought Bush was a really useless President (I mention that in the Ron Paul thread), but one thing is for sure, no US President has been so vilified, insulted, crucified, demonized by the Media and Hollywood like Bush, followed closely by Palin.

On the other hand the many Gaffes by Obama (him saying the US has 57 States is a beauty) and a boatload by Biden, didn't have much echo in the Liberal Media, but when Palin opened her mouth..... I have no problem with Gaffes, everyone has them, but the criticism must be evenly divided

Again, is there a media source out there you think is fair, that you like? Or are they all bad. And if there is even 1 you like, can you finally name it?

I read all media, from left to right leaning. Example: Hufington Post, Politico, Yahoo News, Drudge Report, Breitbart and Youtube.

At home I force myself to listen to the biased CNN, (Piers Morgan, Anderson Cooper, Soledad O'Brian, Candy Crawly, Wolf Blitzer just to name a few are vigorous defenders of everything Obama does) mostly to hear the English language, so I don't forget it.

Lots of different sources as you can see.

Sarah Palin. Seriously, iowadawg or Gilsan. You can picture her as President?

Joe Biden. Seriously, JB Lions. Can you picture him as President? He doesn't even remember what century we're in!

Give me Ron Paul anytime

Now I have a question for you; Are you in favor of Voter ID Law. To me it seems really strange that Democrats are complaining about people needing to show their ID's when voting. :O

Whats even stranger to me is that you can vote without showing an ID. Tell me it ain't so..

 

[enlytend]

no US President has been so vilified, insulted, crucified, demonized by the Media and Hollywood like Bush, followed closely by Palin.

Hmmm ... maybe it was because they agreed with your opinion that

Bush was a really useless President

To me it seems really strange that Democrats are complaining about people needing to show their ID's when voting.

If you're talking about ID as in the context of the new law in PA, it's that they now require a very specific TYPE of ID, and if you don't have the standard "required documentation" (demographics lease likely to have it: students, the poor, the elderly) you have to jump through additional hoops to get one.

AFAIK, you were always required to show some form of ID - or at least that's the way it has always been in my state.

Changing the topic: here's something totally assinine:

[ame="http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=yKa5CY-KOHc"]Akin on "Legitimate Rape" - YouTube[/ame]

"Legitimate" rape? "Ways to try to shut that whole thing down???" So is he saying, like, if it was a "legitimate" rape somehow the egg recognizes the "bad rapist" sperm and ... what? It self destructs? It gets out a teeny-tiny assault rifle and shoots them?

Who the **** is this idiot (who apparently flunked 9th grade biology) and why is he running for senate?

 

[DU]

I have to agree with you about the part about Bush winning despite losing the popular vote. Never understood that myself. That shows there is a big flaw in the US electoral process.

So what's the problem that you have?
You want to have it be popular vote?

The founding fathers were VERY CLEAR in the intent of the electoral college. The fact that there appears to be a lot of gerrymandering going on is a separate issue.

I doubt you will get anywhere trying to reframe the political system of the U.S.

no US President has been so vilified, insulted, crucified, demonized by the Media and Hollywood like Bush, followed closely by Palin.

Palin wasn't president and was dumber than dirt.

I would argue Nixon and some of the other guys early on that predate the Media and Hollywood.

I read all media, from left to right leaning.

Ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha.......

Now I have a question for you; Are you in favor of Voter ID Law. To me it seems really strange that Democrats are complaining about people needing to show their ID's when voting. :O

Whats even stranger to me is that you can vote without showing an ID. Tell me it ain't so..

It's a state issue. Some do. Some don't.

Depends on the extent of the law.

The last time I checked the ID address must match the voter registration address.

Ovbviously this causes conflicts for people that registered in one town and then moved to another - such as out of state students or renters (in particular apt dwellers).

I believe this is 3+ million people.

I'd love to know how the absentee ballot works with required voter id .... I haven't looked at this.

 

[GILSAN]

So what's the problem that you have?
You want to have it be popular vote?

Did I say I had a problem with that? I said I never understood it.

And to answer your question. If someone gets more votes than another, YES he/she should win. I believe it's called democracy.

Bush should never have won that election

 

[iowadawg]

I'd love to know how the absentee ballot works with required voter id .... I haven't looked at this.

We vote absentee here.
Lot easier for us old people than to stand in line at the precinct.
To do so, we have to fill out a form that asked for the usual information like name, address, phone number.
Plus drivers license number.
Then after mailing that form off, we got another form in the mail that just asked for our signature (guessing to make sure of our address?).

 

[GILSAN]

Changing the topic: here's something totally assinine:

Akin on "Legitimate Rape" - YouTube

"Legitimate" rape? "Ways to try to shut that whole thing down???" So is he saying, like, if it was a "legitimate" rape somehow the egg recognizes the "bad rapist" sperm and ... what? It self destructs? It gets out a teeny-tiny assault rifle and shoots them?

Who the **** is this idiot (who apparently flunked 9th grade biology) and why is he running for senate?

Pathetic remarks. They should make him spend a weekend in prison to learn in loco about rape

 

[JB Lions]

"On the other hand the many Gaffes by Obama (him saying the US has 57 States is a beauty) and a boatload by Biden, didn't have much echo in the Liberal Media, but when Palin opened her mouth..... I have no problem with Gaffes, everyone has them, but the criticism must be evenly divided"

Of course, everybody has gaffes and I think people go overboard with it. You're in front of the camera all the time and probably half asleep a lot of the time, you're going to misspeak. But in regards to Palin, how could it be evenly divided when her production of ridiculousness is above and beyond everybody else. And this is more than gaffes, this is just basically not having much of a clue. Feel free to go rewatch some her videos. Her answers are basically soundbites. No meat in any of them, nothing showing she actually understands much. I think McCain sold out his country with that pick. This is one of the first important decisions you make and he scoured the Republican party and this is the best he came up with? I think we all know, it's not who he really wanted, but more what the party wanted, the old, shore up the base candidate. As if a Democrat as President doesn't already do that.

"Joe Biden. Seriously, JB Lions. Can you picture him as President? He doesn't even remember what century we're in!"

You didn't answer the question. I think I already the answer anyway. But I will, I think he's better than Palin obviously. He comes across as a bit wacky sometimes, his mouth gets him in trouble, but when it comes down to it, he's very experienced.

As far as Voter ID law, not sure which one you're referencing - [ame="http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Voter_ID_laws"]Voter ID laws - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia[/ame]

Looks like there are all kinds of different ones. But basically, of course, you should have id to vote, I'm pretty sure that's how it works.

And I might be in the minority on this one, but I'm not a fan of the Electoral College. I understand why we had it, back in the day. But I like a straight up truly democratic vote and that would be a popular vote. Also, the fact that it's legally possible for electors to vote anyway they want, regardless of how the public votes, is amazing to me. It shows a distrust of the American Public. Why is that even legally possible. The only answer I can come up with, is kind of a stopgap or protection measure.

 

[DU]

Did I say I had a problem with that? I said I never understood it.

And to answer your question. If someone gets more votes than another, YES he/she should win. I believe it's called democracy.

Bush should never have won that election

You said

That shows there is a big flaw in the US electoral process.

I took that to mean you thought that there was a problem with the way it worked. Now you say that there is.

That's a (and more importantly, your) definition of democracy... but so is a representational system. A simple majority vote is probably much easier to manipulate. You wouldn't even need to have money laundering super-pacs.

 

[GILSAN]

I think McCain sold out his country with that pick. This is one of the first important decisions you make and he scoured the Republican party and this is the best he came up with? I think we all know, it's not who he really wanted, but more what the party wanted.

After Bush and especially after the 2007-2008 financial crisis, it was virtually impossible for any Republican candidate to win and it made no deference what VP they chose. So why are you always comparing Palin to Biden. That was 4 years ago. You have to compare Ryan and Biden now. We will see in the debates what happens. I know that Candy Crawley of CNN will unfortunately be one of the moderators. Unfortunate because she is an Obama ass kisser.

The only way the Republicans lose the debates is if the moderators don't ask the tough questions about what really matters to the normal person, not the bullshit the MSM insist on bringing up, day in and day out, which I suspect is what will come out in the debates, which will obviously benefit Obama.

"And I might be in the minority on this one, but I'm not a fan of the Electoral College. I understand why we had it, back in the day. But I like a straight up truly democratic vote and that would be a popular vote".

I'm shocked. You and I actually AGREE on something WOW!!! You deserve a :tu: for that!

 

[JB Lions]

"So why are you always comparing Palin to Biden."

? You brought him up. I asked you about Palin, you avoided that and started talking about Biden. I'm showing a pattern of picking bad VPs, it's not helping. Again, Dems usually vote for Dems. Repubs usually vote for Repubs. The base is already fired up with having Obama as President. The right is already going to vote Repub. You need the middle, the moderates, the undecided. VP choices like Palin/Ryan isn't going to get that vote.

As far as the debates, it's on the candidates, not the media. You have to take ownership. It's not like in 2008 we all of a sudden had this new media. It's the same media that was around when Bush was there 2000-2008, it wasn't too long ago.

I think we're going to have some lively debates from these candidates, should be entertaining.

 

[Theo Goodman]

you cant argue with conservatives because they always start quoting the bible

you cant argue with conservatives because they start to blame islam for americas problems

you cant argue with conservatives because they know the "truth"

you cant argue with conservatives because they will start spouting out info they heard from FOX, Rush, or Beck (this is the "truth")

who really cares? this is all a big distraction and will not change anything. Do not go vote.

 

[DU]

You can't argue with anyone who has chosen a side irrespective of the actual content of the discussion.

Way too much red and blue and not nearly enough purple.