Register | Sign In


Understanding through Discussion


EvC Forum active members: 52 (9178 total)
4 online now:
Newest Member: Anig
Upcoming Birthdays: Theodoric
Post Volume: Total: 918,078 Year: 5,335/9,624 Month: 360/323 Week: 204/160 Day: 21/19 Hour: 1/0


Thread  Details

Email This Thread
Newer Topic | Older Topic
  
Author Topic:   The Even More Awesome Presidential Election Thread
caffeine
Member (Idle past 1131 days)
Posts: 1800
From: Prague, Czech Republic
Joined: 10-22-2008


Message 75 of 308 (671750)
08-30-2012 3:29 AM
Reply to: Message 68 by Taq
08-29-2012 5:04 PM


Re: More semantics from NoNukes...YAWN
Quite frankly, I am surprised that a Mormon candidate did so well. The Mormons were chased out of many midwestern states, and now a Mormon candidate for president is poised to win in some of those states. It would appear that people are becoming more tolerant of finer theological beliefs as long as views on other social issues align. It wouldn't surprise me if an anti-abortion, small government, anti-taxation on the rich, atheist Republican did well in a Republican primary. I think the Republican party is more secular than even the Republicans want to admit. It is no longer based on christian values. It is based on the rich getting richer which really doesn't sound like christian theology to me.
Any big political party is made up of a variety of different ideological strands. This is especially true in the US, where people who'd rather be running as a Libertarian or a Green join the Democrats or Republicans because they know they have no chance on the national stage otherwise. The religious right may be one of the most vocal and noticeable parts of the Republican party nowadays, but it's also the party you join if your political hero is Ayn Rand - one of the most militant atheists the right has ever produced.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 68 by Taq, posted 08-29-2012 5:04 PM Taq has not replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 76 by dwise1, posted 08-30-2012 4:33 AM caffeine has not replied

  
caffeine
Member (Idle past 1131 days)
Posts: 1800
From: Prague, Czech Republic
Joined: 10-22-2008


Message 143 of 308 (673286)
09-18-2012 11:57 AM
Reply to: Message 139 by hooah212002
09-18-2012 10:32 AM


Re: Mother Jones on the real Mitt Romney
That's the first time I've heard Mitt Romney speak. He reminds me of an actor, but I can't quite place who. Try listening to his words without watching the picture and see if you can help me figure out who I'm thinking of.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 139 by hooah212002, posted 09-18-2012 10:32 AM hooah212002 has seen this message but not replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 145 by onifre, posted 09-18-2012 12:02 PM caffeine has seen this message but not replied

  
caffeine
Member (Idle past 1131 days)
Posts: 1800
From: Prague, Czech Republic
Joined: 10-22-2008


Message 168 of 308 (673410)
09-19-2012 3:40 AM
Reply to: Message 150 by Kairyu
09-18-2012 3:07 PM


As a European I have trouble understanding how somebody who has made this amount of blunders is still a viable candidate for a presidental race.
And it has been mentioned before here, but I also wonder why the trias politica has firmly in place in the US, but it has such a small role in judging the accomplishments of presidents. And like in the UK, the 2 party system creates serious mud-throwing, and stagnation because they both block and reverse whatever the other party wants to accomplish if they get the chance.
I'm just a outsider, but I like to ask: are you all content with this political system?
I don't think we have any call to sit all smug in Europe. Whilst there are certainly absurdities in the US political system, we've got our fair share here, too. As crashfrog pointed out, the PVV got 15% of the vote in the Netherlands two years ago, and they're still the third largest party now. We're talking a party that put up a website allowing people to register complaints about eastern Europeans playing music too loud or being drunk in the streets.
List Pim Fortuyn did even better, with some voters expressing the opinion that it would be cool to vote for a dead man.
I don't think we're in a position to mock.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 150 by Kairyu, posted 09-18-2012 3:07 PM Kairyu has not replied

  
caffeine
Member (Idle past 1131 days)
Posts: 1800
From: Prague, Czech Republic
Joined: 10-22-2008


Message 208 of 308 (673529)
09-20-2012 4:07 AM
Reply to: Message 204 by NoNukes
09-19-2012 6:46 PM


Re: Moochers
Perhaps I am way too cynical, but I think it was something he said that simply because it was appropriate in the circumstance. I don't believe that he intended to be stuck with what anyone can see is an extremely risky position.
Romney as demonstrated that he can say anything, anytime, anywhere. I'm sure that he would have denied saying those things about the 47 per cent. And he would have gotten away with it too if it had not been for those pesky kids with the video.
This is the first time I've seen the quote in full, and I'd agree wholeheartedly with your analysis.
This is clearly a speech made to rich potential donors, in which Romney is trying to explain why he has a good chance of winning despite high polling numbers for Obama. He does so by appealing to their prejudices about lazy goodfornothings leeching off the state, thus simultaneously reminding them why rich people should prefer Romney instead.
Successful politicians are almost all habitual liars, and always have been. They have always tailored what they say to their audience at the time - it's simply that this is getting harder to get away with now because so much of what public figures do is recorded and posted on the internet immediately. It used to be much simpler - I think it was in A People's History of the United States where two transcripts from Abraham Lincoln's 1860 election campaign are included. In one he condemns the evils of slavery to a meeting of abolitionists; in the other he expresses his continued support for the institution of slavery to a meeting of slaveholders.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 204 by NoNukes, posted 09-19-2012 6:46 PM NoNukes has seen this message but not replied

  
caffeine
Member (Idle past 1131 days)
Posts: 1800
From: Prague, Czech Republic
Joined: 10-22-2008


Message 209 of 308 (673530)
09-20-2012 4:09 AM
Reply to: Message 198 by ringo
09-19-2012 3:30 PM


Re: Speaking of colour...
It's more complicated than that in Canada. Here the Red Force (Liberal Party) is intent on destroying Canada while the Blue Force (Conservative Party) accomplishes the same thing through sheer bumbling stupidity. We're left - pun semi-intended - with the New Democartic Party (Orange Force but not necessarily Dutch) who are idiots.
Canadian colours are also wrong. Liberals use yellow - the NDP should be the ones in red. Orange is reserved for social democrats in countries where the Communist party has staked too big a claim to red already.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 198 by ringo, posted 09-19-2012 3:30 PM ringo has seen this message but not replied

  
Newer Topic | Older Topic
Jump to:


Copyright 2001-2023 by EvC Forum, All Rights Reserved

™ Version 4.2
Innovative software from Qwixotic © 2024