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:

 

[GILSAN]

Here's some more numbers for JB to put into graphs. The US National Debt since Clinton took office till today. These are some factual statistics from the US government itself:

Clinton Administration
(January 20, 1993 – January 20, 2001)
National debt on January 20, 1993 = 4,188,092,107,183.60 (inauguration day)
National debt on January 20, 2001 = 5,727,776,738,304.64 (last day in office)

Bush Administration
(January 20, 2001 – January 20, 2009)
National debt on January 20, 2001 = 5,727,776,738,304.64 (inauguration day)
National debt on January 20, 2009 = 10,626,877,048,913.08 (last day in office)

Obama Administration
(January 20, 2009 – Present)
National debt on January 20, 2009 = 10,626,877,048,913.08 (inauguration day)
National debt on October 04, 2012 = 16,161,879,857,156.66 (and counting)

Just go to this site and put in the dates: http://www.treasurydirect.gov/NP/BPDLogin?application=np

It's easy to see that Obama has added more dept in less than 4 years than Bush did in 8 years.

Obama's only real skill is Running for Office, not Running The Office.

 

[Theo Goodman]

*Deaths in Pakistain

 

[RogueWriter]

During the foreign policy debate, I wonder if this will come up:

Ambassador Asked For More Security, Received Less

"Told to make do."

---------- Post added at 07:24 AM ---------- Previous post was at 07:20 AM ----------

Hmmm, how about a graph depicting the growing influence of the Muslim Brotherhood over the last 4 years.

 

[Theo Goodman]

"Muslim Brotherhood"
They are one of the groups helping the USA to "rebel" against secular goverments in the region, with help from Monarchs Qutar and Saudi Arabia as well as Turkey and NATO. So yea they are one of the many islamic authortarian groups that is supported by the USA. Similar to the support for Bin Laden during the Regan years. This is not exclusive to Obama or the Democrats. And Rmoney would continue the support.
-Sorry now I see where I said "You get handed the worst economy since the Great Depression" but I meant it as a joke. As in You get handed the worst economy since the Great Depression and what do you expect? What do I expect? I expect my Iphone! (in reference to the people accused of getting iphones for voting obama).

 

[JB Lions]

JB, while you are at it, could you post a chart that depicts deficit spending for the last 4 years? Also, how about a month by month unemployment rate for 4 years. Also, could you point out the last time Obama proposed a budget that the majority of =>Senate Democrats<= voted for. Also, how about a chart depicting the number of troops in Afghanistan over the last four years. Also, how about a chart depicting the number of civilians killed by drones in Pakistan over the last four years. Gee, this chart making is kinda fun, you can make any point you want to make without it actually meaning anything.

That's been posted already - http://data.bls.gov/timeseries/LNS14000000

Going down.

Troops in Afghanistan, they're coming home. We had them over there in the right place because Obama knew how to read a map, unlike the last President who had our troops in the wrong country looking for something that wasn't there.

Drones killing civilians? We're also killing intended targets as well. A Republican asking about civilian deaths in another country? It's called war, it's what happens. We would have more of that under a Republican President, since they're so gung ho for it. Now under McCain, Bin Laden would have been still alive, because in the debate he said he wouldn't have gone after him like Obama did.

Yeah, I understand how the right would hate charts, facts and such.

Gilsan, the charts go thru that. Imagine you're watching a movie and somebody is sliding down the slide, let's call him George, then you pause the movie, take out George and put in Obama, then unpause the movie. What happens? Slide back up the slide, or continue to slide down? It's called momentum.

But right now, it's going back in the right direction.

"Hmmm, how about a graph depicting the growing influence of the Muslim Brotherhood over the last 4 years."

How about a chart depicting paranoia, fear mongering, misinformation from the right? You know the typical stuff they use to control their sheep, scare them for their votes. Even with Gilsan stretching that one out, it still would be pretty steep, off the charts.

Like I said, if we had a Republican President in there now, if McCain would have won, you would be bringing these same points up, saying what a good job they've done with what they've been handed. Can you imagine doing the opposite? The Unemployment rate went from a high of 10% under McCain and now it's dropped to 7.8%, that's bad? Would you be saying that? haha, be real.

 

[RogueWriter]

Romney's speech today on foreign policy was amazing, just nailed Obama. If that was any indication as to how debate night is going to go, that is going to be the longest night of Obama's life, just waiting for it to end so he can scoot off to a fundraiser the next day and make caustic, snarky 'zingers' to his adoring followers.

 

[JB Lions]

Romney's speech today on foreign policy was amazing, just nailed Obama. If that was any indication as to how debate night is going to go, that is going to be the longest night of Obama's life, just waiting for it to end so he can scoot off to a fundraiser the next day and make caustic, snarky 'zingers' to his adoring followers.

Will keep this quote in mind, town hall debate on foreign policy. Didn't go too well for McCain.

 

[RogueWriter]

Please do.

I would expect Obama to make a bit of a comeback, at that level every candidate should have mad skill, but that speech I saw, man, it was relentless and spot on. Every sentence hammered a different aspect of Obama's foreign policy or spelled out Romney's policy and why it was important and how it differed from Obama's.

 

[eyedomainous]

Romney's speech sucked, like his foreign policy trip -where he was a national embarrassment.

It was a very Bush-like America as global cowboy speech.

I see you like his "hope is not a strategy" line... which was his summary of Obama's foreign policy. Funny how towards the end of the speech Romney summarizes his approach of showing "leadership" on all fronts to give the world hope because the world wants American leadership. I guess hope is a strategy after all.

In short Romney foreign policy is 99% militaristic. He only mentioned "Free Trade" (not Fair Trade) in passing. And made no mention of China. Any foreign policy speech about growing the military and extending arms and troops, on all fronts, that does not mention China and debt is a set-up for more debt, and death (for not-so-rich kids), so he and his ilk can get rich playing cowboys and Indians.

He mentioned, the last 12 years of war... only to make the case for more. American foreign policy, at this point, has to be focused on competing with emerging (superpower) economies... to collectively rebuild the global economy, so we can tackle the BIG issues... like the sustainability of the planet, and its species (including us), as resource demands spike, while reserves plummet.

Every issue in Romney's speech deals with a small sub-set of regional conflict issues. But not one word about a global foreign policy issue like climate change.

ROMNEY'S SPEECH SUCKED!

Romney's speech today on foreign policy was amazing, just nailed Obama. If that was any indication as to how debate night is going to go, that is going to be the longest night of Obama's life, just waiting for it to end so he can scoot off to a fundraiser the next day and make caustic, snarky 'zingers' to his adoring followers.

 

[RogueWriter]

Actually, if you were listening, one of the points that he was making was that the perception of weakness which Obama is generating is more likely to cause war, is encouraging our enemies into making provocative and hostile actions.

Romney's speech focussed on the Middle East, I suspect, because that is where most of the current issues are occurring. I cannot remember the last time a U.S. Embassy was burned in China, the ambassador killed, do you?

No doubt, Romney will follow up with a second speech that addresses China and Russia. But, then you will complain that the 2nd speech didn't address Africa or Tuvalu.

 

[GILSAN]

I understand that Biden has already arrived in Kentucky for tomorrow's debate, early enough to allow for his body to adjust to the altitude.

 

[Theo Goodman]

The embassy was not burned down and the ambasador was not killed because od precived weakness. Rather due to the support of radical Islamic groups and mercenaries. This creates an envorment in which things like that happen. During the Obama years there has been a systematic proxy war raged agaisnt secular SOCIALIST countries (Lybia and Syria)(Yes, Obama funded and supported militarily war against SOCIALIST countries) (sounds like he is a socialsit or communist right?). The main crime was/is wanting to be energy indypendent of Saudi Arabia and Quatar as well as wanting to use gold as currency (That happen to be Islamic Monarchys that legaly cut peoples hands off and stuff like that and stones people to death)
Neither Rmoney or Obama is going to change this pattern in the middle east. If you are NOT an Islamic Country than you should be afraid no matter who is elected. This whole- soft word lets all get along vs. USA Cowboy -is simply cosmetic.

 

[GILSAN]

The embassy was not burned down and the ambasador was not killed because od precived weakness.

During one week, Obama, Hillary Clinton, UN Ambassador Rice, just to name a few were telling the world that it was that Video's fault. Now you are telling us something else; "not perceived weakness"

Rather due to the support of radical Islamic groups and mercenaries. This creates an envorment in which things like that happen. During the Obama years there has been a systematic proxy war raged agaisnt secular SOCIALIST countries (Lybia and Syria)(Yes, Obama funded and supported militarily war against SOCIALIST countries) (sounds like he is a socialsit or communist right?). The main crime was/is wanting to be energy indypendent of Saudi Arabia and Quatar as well as wanting to use gold as currency (That happen to be Islamic Monarchys that legaly cut peoples hands off and stuff like that and stones people to death)
Neither Rmoney or Obama is going to change this pattern in the middle east. If you are NOT an Islamic Country than you should be afraid no matter who is elected. This whole- soft word lets all get along vs. USA Cowboy -is simply cosmetic.

Sorry but this doesn't make any sense to me

 

[Theo Goodman]

The video was just an excuse. The attack on the ambasodor was not a mob, but rather an action done by a commando unit, Rmoney agrees.

Of course nobody can "prove" a direct link since we dont know who actually was behind the action.
However merinary groups, funded, armed and supported by the USA in Lybia are more than able to preform such an action. Also they are Islamic Jihadist groups.

Lybia was a socialst nation that was secular. They wanted to introduce the Gold Dinar, to compeate with the Euro and Dollar. It was to be based on Gold , as in you turn in your papaer money for gold if you want. This was a major threat to the Dollar and Euro. Ironic that the often labeled "Socialist" or "Communist" Obama called in air strikes to support US backed jihadist "rebels". Rmoney would have done no diiferent, and that is quite a "cowboy" policy.

Syria has a port that is needed to transport oil and gas from Iran and Russia. The pipeline that would go through Syria is indypentent from Saudia Arabia and Qutar. It would compeate with them. Isnt it ironic that we speak of "energy Independence" which is what Syria wants ,Independence from Saudia oil, yet we support the "rebels" openly with money bases training and more. Syria is a socialist secular country where religions live together. US backed "rebels" want to install an Islamic state. Many of the same jihadist groups that were part of the "rebelion" there are in Syria now. Modern day privateers.

Here Rmoney would do no different.

Ironic again that Obama the "Socialist" is backing a war against a socialist country.

In middle east policy Rmoney and Obama are extremely close.

 

[JB Lions]

Actually, if you were listening, one of the points that he was making was that the perception of weakness which Obama is generating is more likely to cause war, is encouraging our enemies into making provocative and hostile actions.

That's just the run of the mill fear mongering from the right. He's actually taken care of business during his term, handling stuff. This whole him not meeting with Netanyahu actually showed some strength on his part, maybe Romney would have been over kissing his ass. Right before that, Netanyahu was going off on Obama, so Obama blew him off. All I've heard from Romney, is basically George Bush 2.

As far as Iran, if you take a look at a map, you would notice we have that country surrounded with military bases and our sanctions are working.

This guy is such a fraud:

Romney says won't pursue new abortion laws

http://news.yahoo.com/romney-says-w...RhaWQDBHBzdGNhdANob21lBHB0A3NlY3Rpb25z;_ylv=3

 

[RogueWriter]

Yeah, our sanctions are working so well they are going to be nuclear in 2-4 months, lol. I don't see one bit of fear mongering, not in the least.

What I DO see is passivity from our current leadership. I wonder if the 10,000 dead Syrians would have voted for Obama's passive leadership, or if they would have voted for someone more willing to help them.

 

[JB Lions]

Yeah, our sanctions are working so well they are going to be nuclear in 2-4 months, lol. I don't see one bit of fear mongering, not in the least.

What I DO see is passivity from our current leadership. I wonder if the 10,000 dead Syrians would have voted for Obama's passive leadership, or if they would have voted for someone more willing to help them.

So you want to go in and bomb Iran? And then you would also like the U.S. to get involved militarily in Syria?

Gilsan, curious to see where you stand on this. You agree with RogueWriter? We should go ahead get more involved militarily in the Middle East? Have you flip flopped all the way over to the right/Romney/Bush way of thinking or are you still holding it down for Ron Paul, who thinks the opposite? Which one?

 

[Theo Goodman]

Obama is not being passive and Rmoney would do the same.
The so called "rebels" that are shipped in from saudia arabia ect. are using a NATO base in turkey . They are being trained and given intelegence by the CIA and US Military. The US military is now in Jordan, Isreal will now go to the Golen Hights. They are poking at Syria hoping that the fear of a two front war will be enough to make the country colapse.

 

[GILSAN]

Ironic again that Obama the "Socialist" is backing a war against a socialist country.

In middle east policy Rmoney and Obama are extremely close.

You may call Libya and Syria "socialist" I call them "dictatorships". Are you telling me that the US should have protected Gaddafi? How about Al Assad, should the US also help him stay in office? Look how long his father Hafez (1970-2000) and he, Bashar (since 2000) have been governing Syria. That's 42 years and still going. That's a bloody dynasty.

Gaddafi ruled from 1969-2011, also 42 years and if he hadn't been put to rest, someday one of his sons would have carried on.

And yes there is a difference. Obama has been too passive in relation to Arab States who just cannot be trusted. When a US President bows to a Saudi Prince or blames a video for the murder of 4 Americans, when everyone knew just by looking at the images that it was something more organized, then you have a President that shows weakness.

Romney on the other hand, when he becomes President next month will show a tough stance in the Middle East which the Arabs understand better. NEVER show weakness to Arab States.

 

[JB Lions]

So you're basically a fraudulent Ron Paul fan.

"When a US President bows to a Saudi Prince"

I don't actually like that myself but it's more cultural, sign of respect territory

"Romney on the other hand, when he becomes President next month will show a tough stance in the Middle East which the Arabs understand better. NEVER show weakness to Arab States."

That means........... You, Romney keep staying tough stance. Are you guys afraid to say bomb or more war or something? What exactly? Are you scared to say it because politically not a good idea? Did you watch the Republican convention, it was like crickets when McCain started rambling on about it.

How about some specifics from you and RogueWriter

Iran __________

Syria _________

fill in the blanks, what would you like to see. Not "tough stance" mumbo jumbo, specifics.