Jump to content
  • Sign up for free and receive a month's subscription

    You are viewing this page as a guest. That means you are either a member who has not logged in, or you have not yet registered with us. Signing up for an account only takes a minute and it means you will no longer see this annoying box! It will also allow you to get involved with our friendly(ish!) community and take part in the discussions on our forums. And because we're feeling generous, if you sign up for a free account we will give you a month's free trial access to our subscriber only content with no obligation to commit. Register an account and then send a private message to @dave u and he'll hook you up with a subscription.

Recommended Posts

Romney really is clueless - I seriously cant believe he is running for president. Its surreal.

 

Obama will take it and even though he is by far the better candidate, people should read up on his actions since being in office. He has made quite a few mistakes and his ideology doesn't seem in line with America's identity. Just finished a book called The Amateur by David Klien which was decent and talked about his time as president.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • Replies 315
  • Created
  • Last Reply

Top Posters In This Topic

Do you reckon? I've heard quite a few yanks talk like that myself, the 'Joe six pack' types. It seems to be a prevailing view - as it is over here these days probably.

 

 

It is a common view, but it's not one that presidential candidates say out loud because it's so controversial, for want of a better euphemism.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Romney really is clueless - I seriously cant believe he is running for president. Its surreal.

 

Obama will take it and even though he is by far the better candidate, people should read up on his actions since being in office. He has made quite a few mistakes and his ideology doesn't seem in line with America's identity. Just finished a book called The Amateur by David Klien which was decent and talked about his time as president.

 

He's no more clueless than the rest though is he? McCain was dozy as shit and Bush's retardedness was the stuff of legend. Say one thing for the Democrats but both Clinton and Obama were intellectually formidable. The Republicans are usually the opposite, Reagan is a great example. Probably because they're tools and mouthpeaces rather than genuine political forces in their own rights.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Its scary that the so called 'leaders of the free world' can have such a massive cunt as presidential nominee. Even crazier they can afford to virtually right off 47% of the electorate.

 

American politics are an absolute joke. He virtually admits both sides have guaranteed support 'no matter what' and are only campaigning to 10% of voters. Scary.

 

What's scary is that he's not wrong, on either count really. Personally I'd like to see that whole of 10% vote third-party in a nice "FUCK YOU" to the two-party dictatorship.

 

It's all one big illusion of choice anyway, in practice Romney has been very similar to Obama. Both sides have loads of war-hawks and no real standout liberals or conservatives. More so it's just dem-fascists and repub-fascists.

 

The unemployment numbers are a joke as well, they don't include everyone who actually doesn't have a job just people who fit a certain criteria as to what their definition of "unemployed" is.

 

Shoepiss - What is it that you feel makes Ron Paul ignorant, cretinous, and selfish?

Link to comment
Share on other sites

What's scary is that he's not wrong, on either count really. Personally I'd like to see that whole of 10% vote third-party in a nice "FUCK YOU" to the two-party dictatorship.

 

It's all one big illusion of choice anyway, in practice Romney has been very similar to Obama. Both sides have loads of war-hawks and no real standout liberals or conservatives. More so it's just dem-fascists and repub-fascists.

 

The unemployment numbers are a joke as well, they don't include everyone who actually doesn't have a job just people who fit a certain criteria as to what their definition of "unemployed" is.

 

Shoepiss - What is it that you feel makes Ron Paul ignorant, cretinous, and selfish?

 

At least you get the sense Obama could host foreign leaders without insulting them. Although I know foreign policy is not that important to Americans in general.

 

I like Ron Paul by the way, a politician with courage imho.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

At least you get the sense Obama could host foreign leaders without insulting them. Although I know foreign policy is not that important to Americans in general.

 

I like Ron Paul by the way, a politician with courage imho.

 

See the bolded bit is the problem. On the surface of it, you're right. It almost never plays a huge part in our elections anymore (though since it's connected to so many things, including spending, taxation, and the economy it should). However, when you really talk to people it's one of the main issues out there, and for the most part no matter which party they belong to at least the younger generations of voting aged people to think we need to stop being the world's police and stop getting into new wars and wrap up the ones we're in.

 

I'd argue that to a point it was a big + for Obama in 08, certainly one of the reasons I voted for him. Then he gets in and it's more of the same shit and not just in terms of foreign policy either, which is a reason I won't vote for him again. Some people blame congress, and they haven't exactly been co-operative all of the time but they aren't there to blindly do what the President wants anyway, that's not their job. Also, the man had a democratic house and senate in his first two-years, yet still couldn't really produce much of what he claimed. For me this means he's either incompetent, or doesn't actually want what he claims to want. Now, I lean towards the latter, because you'd think you have to be somewhat competent to win the Presidency (Jr. Bush's 3rd grade reading ability points otherwise though) and he is a good public speaker/motivator.

 

Who knows though really, maybe deep down he really wants everything he says and yet, the power brokers behind the scenes won't let him really push for that. If that's the case though then why even bother really...

 

Yea that's what I like most about Ron Paul, he seems to say what he feels and doesn't just tote the party line like pretty much every other politician out there. The only person on the left that I think really compares to him is Dennis Kucinic, different ideas and rhetoric but same conviction and reliance on their principles rather than party lines.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

See the bolded bit is the problem. On the surface of it, you're right. It almost never plays a huge part in our elections anymore (though since it's connected to so many things, including spending, taxation, and the economy it should). However, when you really talk to people it's one of the main issues out there, and for the most part no matter which party they belong to at least the younger generations of voting aged people to think we need to stop being the world's police and stop getting into new wars and wrap up the ones we're in.

 

I'd argue that to a point it was a big + for Obama in 08, certainly one of the reasons I voted for him. Then he gets in and it's more of the same shit and not just in terms of foreign policy either, which is a reason I won't vote for him again. Some people blame congress, and they haven't exactly been co-operative all of the time but they aren't there to blindly do what the President wants anyway, that's not their job. Also, the man had a democratic house and senate in his first two-years, yet still couldn't really produce much of what he claimed. For me this means he's either incompetent, or doesn't actually want what he claims to want. Now, I lean towards the latter, because you'd think you have to be somewhat competent to win the Presidency (Jr. Bush's 3rd grade reading ability points otherwise though) and he is a good public speaker/motivator.

 

Who knows though really, maybe deep down he really wants everything he says and yet, the power brokers behind the scenes won't let him really push for that. If that's the case though then why even bother really...

 

Yea that's what I like most about Ron Paul, he seems to say what he feels and doesn't just tote the party line like pretty much every other politician out there. The only person on the left that I think really compares to him is Dennis Kucinic, different ideas and rhetoric but same conviction and reliance on their principles rather than party lines.

 

It was only 4 months of senate & house control at the start wasn't it?

Plus Obama campaigned on being above petty squabbling and appealing to people who wanted sensible politics and being able to negotiate with the Republicans. He was a bit naive I reckon in thinking he'd be able to do that as the GOP just wanted to obstruct and their main goal was "ensure Obama is a one term president".

 

The main problem Obama has is that he gets shit loads of funding from the financial industry, so he is unwilling to do what needs to be done, or even talk about reigning in the excesses and fuck ups that banks and executive greed have done to the US. So you just get a bit of tickling around the edges.

 

Ron Paul has some good ideas on foreign intervention and the war on drugs, but he's terrible on pretty much anything else.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

 

See the bolded bit is the problem. On the surface of it' date=' you're right. It almost never plays a huge part in our elections anymore (though since it's connected to so many things, including spending, taxation, and the economy it should). However, when you really talk to people it's one of the main issues out there, and for the most part no matter which party they belong to at least the younger generations of voting aged people to think we need to stop being the world's police and stop getting into new wars and wrap up the ones we're in.

 

I'd argue that to a point it was a big + for Obama in 08, certainly one of the reasons I voted for him. Then he gets in and it's more of the same shit and not just in terms of foreign policy either, which is a reason I won't vote for him again. Some people blame congress, and they haven't exactly been co-operative all of the time but they aren't there to blindly do what the President wants anyway, that's not their job. Also, the man had a democratic house and senate in his first two-years, yet still couldn't really produce much of what he claimed. For me this means he's either incompetent, or doesn't actually want what he claims to want. Now, I lean towards the latter, because you'd think you have to be somewhat competent to win the Presidency (Jr. Bush's 3rd grade reading ability points otherwise though) and he is a good public speaker/motivator.

 

Who knows though really, maybe deep down he really wants everything he says and yet, the power brokers behind the scenes won't let him really push for that. If that's the case though then why even bother really...

 

Yea that's what I like most about Ron Paul, he seems to say what he feels and doesn't just tote the party line like pretty much every other politician out there. The only person on the left that I think really compares to him is Dennis Kucinic, different ideas and rhetoric but same conviction and reliance on their principles rather than party lines.[/quote']

 

Its a choice between the lesser of two evils but I would almost always go for a democrat as they do seem to elect presidents with at least a modicum of intelligence.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

See the bolded bit is the problem. On the surface of it, you're right. It almost never plays a huge part in our elections anymore (though since it's connected to so many things, including spending, taxation, and the economy it should). However, when you really talk to people it's one of the main issues out there, and for the most part no matter which party they belong to at least the younger generations of voting aged people to think we need to stop being the world's police and stop getting into new wars and wrap up the ones we're in.

 

I'd argue that to a point it was a big + for Obama in 08, certainly one of the reasons I voted for him. Then he gets in and it's more of the same shit and not just in terms of foreign policy either, which is a reason I won't vote for him again. Some people blame congress, and they haven't exactly been co-operative all of the time but they aren't there to blindly do what the President wants anyway, that's not their job. Also, the man had a democratic house and senate in his first two-years, yet still couldn't really produce much of what he claimed. For me this means he's either incompetent, or doesn't actually want what he claims to want. Now, I lean towards the latter, because you'd think you have to be somewhat competent to win the Presidency (Jr. Bush's 3rd grade reading ability points otherwise though) and he is a good public speaker/motivator.

 

Who knows though really, maybe deep down he really wants everything he says and yet, the power brokers behind the scenes won't let him really push for that. If that's the case though then why even bother really...

 

Yea that's what I like most about Ron Paul, he seems to say what he feels and doesn't just tote the party line like pretty much every other politician out there. The only person on the left that I think really compares to him is Dennis Kucinic, different ideas and rhetoric but same conviction and reliance on their principles rather than party lines.

 

Maybe its not the President but the system. Regardless of who 'leads' the country, and I use that term very loosely, unless he has the appropriate support will never in a million years be able to implement policy. No doubt at least 80% of decision makers have vested interests one way or another, mostly financial I would assume. We all know who holds the real power in the US, and it certainly isnt your President.

 

Obama is just another scapegoat. Just with more personality.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Maybe its not the President but the system. Regardless of who 'leads' the country, and I use that term very loosely, unless he has the appropriate support will never in a million years be able to implement policy. No doubt at least 80% of decision makers have vested interests one way or another, mostly financial I would assume. We all know who holds the real power in the US, and it certainly isnt your President.

 

Obama is just another scapegoat. Just with more personality.

 

 

Seems to me that there are too many horses going in too many directions... thats why the US is deteriorating rapidly.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Maybe its not the President but the system. Regardless of who 'leads' the country, and I use that term very loosely, unless he has the appropriate support will never in a million years be able to implement policy. No doubt at least 80% of decision makers have vested interests one way or another, mostly financial I would assume. We all know who holds the real power in the US, and it certainly isnt your President.

 

Obama is just another scapegoat. Just with more personality.

 

Yea I totally agree with that, crony capitalism/corporate fascism and all that.

 

Makes me wonder why more people don't at least delve into the realm of "conspiracy" to be honest. We pretty much get the same shit no matter what, everyone bitches about it but no one takes the people actually trying to explain a reason for it (whether right or wrong) the time of day. They just keep rotating between party A and party B.

 

It could end up being all for nothing anyway, as it looks like we're about to have a new World War if shit keeps going the way it has been and, more specifically to the US, if QE3 or whatever they're calling it this time fails like it probably will then inflation will probably reach massive levels.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

The US is mentally in a lost state. Its hegemonic role in the world is being challenged, its people are being divisive and unhappy, teetering on panicky, its political class is power hungry and somewhat disconnected, its soul is being wrecked between religious fundamentalism and greed. The causes are numerous, you may have to write a book to analyze them all -- chief amongst which is the collapse of the old industry and manufacturing sectors and increased competition from abroad, blue collar workers that used to have job security no longer do, if they even have a job, so they turn to the other center of their community -- church, and became more and more fundamentalistic. Concurrently, the internet and new expansion of important in health care, finance expanded the city-dwelling white collar professional class that have little in common with the church folks. The end of the Cold war also encouraged the free-market fundamentalists to turn the nut dial all-the-way-to-11 and this is where we ended up.

 

But you'd better hope that we'll find our way again, for neither having China as the overlord or a pseudo-anarchic state in which 8 billions lost souls driven by self-interested egomaniac "national leaders" fighting over scarce natural resources and petty squabbles would make earth a decent place to live.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Thought this was interesting today about the US. Basically your whole country has gone completely wrong.

 

A new study says white Americans with low educational levels have already lost an average of four years from their life expectancy.

That's the loss of 5 per cent of the average lifespan for an American who lacks a high school diploma, and it's happened at astonishing speed - between 1990 and 2008, says the lead investigator for the study, S. Jay Olshansky, a public health professor at the University of Illinois at Chicago.

It compares to the much-deplored loss of life expectancy in post-Soviet Russia, when the collapse of the state-run system and an epidemic of alcoholism cut seven years from the life of the average Russian.

While less-educated Americans were losing 5 per cent of their life expectancy, humanity as a whole went in the opposite direction, at about the same speed. Average life expectancy across the planet rose by 7 per cent from 1990 to 2010, according to UN data.

 

And the US overall was not doing very well by international comparison to start with. Americans rank 36th in the world for longevity with an average 78.3 years, almost identical to Cubans, who have one-fifth the level of income.

Americans live 3½ years less than citizens of the five top-ranked countries - Japan, Hong Kong, Iceland, Switzerland and Australia.

 

The story of American life expectancy is an alarming expression of its larger story. The US is delivering the full benefits of prosperity and modernity in an increasingly narrow way.

It was long known that richer Americans improved their life expectancy at a greater rate than poor Americans, but lifespans lengthened for all. Today, advantaged Americans live longer while the disadvantaged live shorter. That is the real import of the new findings. It is about inequality, in the most basic manifestation - the number of days of life.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Romney today asking why you cant open windows on a plane!

 

His wife was on a plane which had a engine fire, he said she was choking from the smoke and if she could open the window it would help, totally missing the point that a) the oxygen would of fuelled the fire and b) even more worrying he never knew this, the plane would of lost pressure and blew up!

 

God forbid he wins

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Goes to show the Republicans understand the game better than the Democrats, they know what the democrats only fear, that the man in charge is powerless, so why be arsed whether or not he's a retard or has any ideas? He's not going to be making policy anyway. He just needs to connect with Joe Six Pack and John Q Taxpayer.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

One of the guests on Counterspin a few weeks ago set out how laughable the idea that there will be "debates" really is. The two parties set out rules that strictly ensure that not only is there no debate (they are forbiden to speak to each other and follow up questions are banned) but also that stops any themes that aren't appreciated arising (even the "Town Hall" questions are submitted in advance and then only people who submitted suitable questions will be chosen to speak). The people in the town hall are props. The moderator is choosing the questions and the parties are choosing the moderator. One extra handy bonus of this is that they can exclude any other participants that the US public might want to see there, for instance in 1996 with Perot. 76% of people wanted him there, he was shut out.

 

Previously it was done by The league of women, and done very well. They demanded an independent got his go in 1980 and the first time they were tasked with applying the contract drawn up by the two parties (memorandum of unerstanding) the said they would not be part of "hoodwinking the American nation". It's clever to have a commission that sounds like a democratic non-partizan organistation as it means the public don't click that it's the candidates/partes refusing to open up questioning.

 

Walter Cronkite described the current method of organising the debates as "unconscionable fraud".

 

Here is the episode for anyone interested. This topic starts ten minutes in: George Farah on open debates, Muhammad Sahimi on IAEA Iran report

 

Anyone who is interested in reading these contracts drawn up by the two parties can follow the links below:

 

http://www.opendebates.org/news/documents/1992MemorandumofUnderstanding.pdf

 

http://www.opendebates.org/news/documents/1996MemorandaOfUnderstanding.pdf

 

http://www.opendebates.org/news/documents/debateagreement.pdf

 

For anyone who listens to podcasts and has an interest seeing the media the US recieves being dissected then I cannot recommend CounterSpin highly enough.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

For anyone who listens to podcasts and has an interest seeing the media the US recieves being dissected then I cannot recommend CounterSpin highly enough.

 

 

I like Slate's political gabfest. Bazelon can sometimes come off as naive, but Dickenson can dissect all the angles while Plotz plays the devil advocate decently.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Join the conversation

You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.

Guest
Reply to this topic...

×   Pasted as rich text.   Paste as plain text instead

  Only 75 emoji are allowed.

×   Your link has been automatically embedded.   Display as a link instead

×   Your previous content has been restored.   Clear editor

×   You cannot paste images directly. Upload or insert images from URL.

 Share


×
×
  • Create New...