The General American Politics Thread

[Your Vest Friend]

Ah, this needs to come back and be renamed "Romney Makes a Prat of Himself in Britannia".

[Patticus]

You know your foreign charm offensive, hell your whole presidential campaign, is going badly when when the likes of London Mayor Boris Johnson can mock you openly in front of a crowd of 60,000 people, when people willing to speak anonymously about your behind-closed-doors meetings with foreign diplomats and dignitaries call your visit "a car crash," and you, "worse than Sarah Palin in terms of basic diplomacy." And when dozens of economists from across the ideological spectrum say that on some of your party's most cherished issues, both you and the party have simply taken leave of economic reality.

[Emmett L. Brown]

To be honest, whenever European media talks about political events in the USA, there's very often a slightly mocking tone to it. To give an example, here's an article from a major Norwegian newspaper today:

http://www.vg.no/nyheter/utenriks/artikkel.php?artid=10059417

I'll translate the title: "A lot of people still think Obama is a muslim". And then it goes on to dedicate the entire article to the absurdity that so many Americans are still that stubborn in their easily-disproven beliefs.

[PSI Wind]

While I really don't like politics....period. I do have to say, if Mitt wins the election, I might as well give up on this country.

That, or call America the dumbest country in the world.

[Patticus]

That, or call America the dumbest country in the world.

This is the country whose people (or, well, whose electoral college representatives) decided it'd be a great idea to elect G.W. Bush twice in succession.

Any country which does that is suspect.

[Stacy]

"Romney! You Plonker!".

Sorry, couldn't resist I was quite annoyed at his Olympics comments seeing as my father spent 12 hours a day guarding the torch bearers for the past week, saying we are not prepared, fuck off you corporate 80's yuppie Reagan wannabe bastard.

Also calling Ed Milliband "Mr. Leader" was amusing. Although I wouldn't stroke his ego, Mr. Romney.

[Tornado]

Oh boy. I was hoping Patticus would post this:

And when dozens of economists from across the ideological spectrum say that on some of your party's most cherished issues, both you and the party have simply taken leave of economic reality.

Because I just knew the amount of bullshit in it would be hilarious. And it did not disappoint.

Where to begin...

I know.

A survey of forty economists from across the ideological and partisan spectrum has concluded that on some of its most cherished issues, the Republican Party has simply taken leave of economic reality.

No it didn't you pretentious asshole (That's not towards you Pat. Much love). That's the conclusion you drew from a bunch of polls that supported that while completely ignoring the ones that supported or were indifferent to current Republican ideals. The polling numbers neither said nor implied anything of the sort. So we're off to a good start already. But let's examine this more closely.

Example:

Contrary to nearly every Republican, the economists overwhelmingly agreed that the federal budget deficit cannot and should not be closed without increased tax revenue.

That's a pretty damning charge:

It's not one that is actually supported by the poll, because the poll was dealing with long-term sustainability for government spending in general and not closing the deficit specifically, but we'll ignore that because there is a much more entertaining elephant in the room to see.

And this one is quite related:

The “Laffer Curve” won’t help. Virtually all of them rejected the notion that cutting income tax rates would actually increase total tax revenue in future years.

But wait a minute. Here's the original news story where Republicans said that:

When asked during tonight’s GOP presidential primary debate if they would walk away from a deficit reduction deal that had a spending cut to revenue ratio of 10 to 1, all of the candidates raised their hands to indicate that they would.

So no. That's not what the Republicans said. What the Republican candidates actually said was that they would not raise taxes to cover the difference even if the attempt to cut the deficit was overwhelmingly spending cut-based, and the original question didn't even give a specific timeframe. I see no claims there that not raising taxes could close the defecit by itself. I mean, aren't there other reasons Republicans have explained for not raising taxes during an economic recession that have nothing to do with the deficit?

Oh. Oops. Article didn't note that. I wonder why.

Last thing, I promise:

No gold standard. They roundly rejected the belief that a return to the gold standard would stabilize prices or lower unemployment. Enthusiasm for the gold standard made a significant comeback in Republican circles during the presidential primaries.

No. I'm pretty sure that the Republican presidential primary candidates (plural, because Ron Paul has always been a Gold Standard advocate) had not done this when the real nitty-gritty debates and primaries and such started. But let's check his source. Maybe he didn't pull this out of his ass too:

Goldbugs Return Across The Country: Goldbuggery — the belief that the U.S. should go back to using the gold standard — made a strong return to the country in the last year, from Georgia lawmakers proposing a bill that would force taxpayers to make state transactions in only gold and silver to Utah legalizing the use of gold and silver coins for just about anything. And Republicans piled on, deriding the U.S. dollar as “fiat currency” and attending goldbug conferences. Nevermind that most mainstream economists agree that linking the U.S. currency to a rock that comes out of the ground never actually worked and would have disastrous consequences if embraced again.

Oh. I see. Republicans of two states trying to force their states to return to the gold standard while the Republican Presidential primaries happened to be going on, and a couple of the fringe candidates showing up to fringe events months and months and months before the primaries even started (noted by the fact that the article is so old that it says Herman Cain is a Presidential hopeful); with only one candidate (Paul) showing any support behind it outside of "I want to get elected so I'll go see these people." Which, I'm sorry to say, but regardless of your opinion on the gold standard does not mean the same thing as "enthusiasm for the gold standard made a significant comeback in Republican circles during the presidential primaries." Because the implication such a statement makes is pretty clear.

So yeah. That was an entertaining article to read.

Edited July 27, 2012 by Gilda

[Nicknyte]

*looks in the topic and walks the opposite direction*

But no. I'd like to incur that all of us treat each other the way we'd like to be treated ourselves, not calling each other pretentious assholes. Seriously, would you expect someone to acknowledge your opinion by insulting them?

Also, I don't care what the Europeans say. What they think of our country is fine, since everyone is entitled to an opinion. Doesn't mean we have to turn into little babies whenever we hear something negative about America.

[Stacy]

Gilda are you Pro-Republican but any chance, just asking?

[Tornado]

Nope. I absolutely loathe the Republican party as it is now, and Mitt Romney in particular. Why do you ask?

But no. I'd like to incur that all of us treat each other the way we'd like to be treated ourselves, not calling each other pretentious assholes. Seriously, would you expect someone to acknowledge your opinion by insulting them?

I don't particularly care if someone who wrote a heavily biased internet article to support his personal ideology, who will never see my post in response to it on a Sonic message board to begin with, is bothered by me calling him a pretentious asshole; nor am I bothered by him responding by ignoring my opinion when he would have done the same regardless (since he wrote the article that way on purpose). Shit like that absolutely disgusts me. It's no difference from Fox News crap.

Edited July 27, 2012 by Gilda

[Nicknyte]

Sorry, I must have misread. I thought you were calling someone on the board itself that. XD My bad, Gilda. Yea. I completely agree.

[Stacy]

Nope. I absolutely loathe the Republican party as it is now, and Mitt Romney in particular. Why do you ask?

I don't particularly care if someone who wrote a heavily biased internet article to support his personal ideology, who will never see my post in response to it on a Sonic message board to begin with, is bothered by me calling him a pretentious asshole. Shit like that absolutely disgusts me.

I was curious, thanks for replying.

EDIT: Sorry just saw your post above, Nick.

Edited July 27, 2012 by BW199148

[Sami]

Nope. I absolutely loathe the Republican party as it is now, and Mitt Romney in particular. Why do you ask?

Probably because your last posts were challenging extremely biased anti-Republican claims.

Since this is the first time an election is going on while I'm actually old enough to understand what's happening, I have to say; I really wish people from both sides were more level-headed and didn't outright lie about both parties and their policies. It'd make this shit much easier to learn/follow. :V

[Nicknyte]

Republican party just needs to catch up to the times and work together with the other party. Seriously, the Obamacare platform was a Republican position, and the party shunned it Just because it had Obama's name attached. It's been their platform TO DEFEAT OBAMA. I mean, man. Look, the country didn't like the fact that the Dem's were spending all this money to get the country back on track, and they voted them out, thus the House of Reps turned into the House of Petty Politics due to Tea Party Republicans. People tend to forget the National Budget Fiasco where we weren't able to sign the budget due to infighting in the Congress. I was almost laid off because of that (I work for the Army as a contractor)! There is no need to hold the country for Ransom just because you don't like a certain President. Get with the program guys! I am not Anti-Republican, but I sure don't like this generation of them.

....Holy that girl's eyes are made of Jello.

Edited July 27, 2012 by Nicknyte

[Patticus]

Nicknyte, you're going to be sorely disappointed with what's in store for US politics I'm afraid. House Republicans are continuing to be absolute c***s, just like last year when they needlessly and pointlessly kicked up a shitstorm over raising the debt ceiling - something they've never taken issue with in the past,

House Republicans To Boehner: If We Can’t Repeal Obamacare, Shut Down The Government

In the letter dated July 18, more than 100 GOP lawmakers asked House Speaker John Boehner (OH) and Majority Leader Eric Cantor (VA) to stop “any legislation” from coming to the floor that would fund the implementation of the Affordable Care Act — potentially leading to a government shutdown. Congress must pass a funding measure before October 1 to keep the government running, yet a majority of Republicans are willing to risk a shutdown in order to take away coverage from more than 30 million Americans and increase the deficit by more than $100 billion.

Despite the possibility of a standoff with the Democrat-controlled Senate and a veto threat from President Obama, the Republicans called for defunding Obamacare while continuing attempts to repeal the heath care reform law:

According to Talking Points Memo, Boehner suggested on Tuesday that he would reject the proposal. “I expect we’ll have an agreement with the Senate on a CR,” he said. “But our goal would be to make sure the government is funded and any political talk of a government shutdown is put to rest.”

House Republicans so far have wasted $50 million trying and failing to repeal Obamacare 31 times. The latest Congressional Budget Office report shows that eliminating the Affordable Care Act would add $109 billion to the nation’s deficit.

http://thinkprogress.org/health/2012/07/25/581901/house-republicans-obamacare-funding/

These people, these rabid slaves of corporate lobbyists (not counting their Democrat corporate slave brethren), would rather see the United States brought to its knees, its economy sent into free-fall, before they would see Obama in for a second term. I've always known that politicians were by and large greedy, self-centered arseholes with little regard for anything but their bank balances, but this takes the cake!

[Tornado]

Please find alternative sources for these things Pat. That's two for two from that website that was almost painful to read, and I don't have the energy to pull that one apart piece by piece. I could do broad strokes explanations why those conclusions presented in the article are biased shit if need be, but it took me 45 minutes to type out that post earlier.

Edited July 27, 2012 by Gilda

[turbojet]

Even I could have told you that Gilda was not a Republican.

And to take note of Patticus's article, when the CBO says something is dumb fuck stupid, you fucking listen. They are a non-partisan organization and are strictly economists if not the world's best economists. I rarely call economics a science or as sturdy as a hard science, but their correlative finding usually wield a 99% confidence rate and are rarely wrong unlike the President's OMB.

[Tornado]

And to take note of Patticus's article, when the CBO says something is dumb fuck stupid, you fucking listen. They are a non-partisan organization and are strictly economists if not the world's best economists. I rarely call economics a science or as sturdy as a hard science, but their correlative finding usually wield a 99% confidence rate and are rarely wrong unlike the President's OMB.

That very last sentence in that article was the only one I'd say was presented genuinely.

[Nicknyte]

Don't worry, I am not concerned. I just know that I am more concerned on what the Congress will look like when a third of the HoR is reshuffled. I consider it more important at times than the Presidental Election.

[Patticus]

Yeah, I think I see why that article is so bad now... I don't think I'll be looking for other sources on the main portion of that main story though, I doubt I'll get anything to support it, I was gullible to believe it.

The GOP members of the house do have a history of trying to make the government shut down in precisely this manner though; last year's debt ceiling debacle, for instance, and IIRC also last year, they were trying to do the same over Planned Parenthood.

[Tornado]

The GOP members of the house do have a history of trying to make the government shut down in precisely this manner though; last year's debt ceiling debacle, for instance, and IIRC also last year, they were trying to do the same over Planned Parenthood.

That is true. I'm not arguing that it isn't.

But the only way that "Refuse to allocate funding for Obamacare" could mean the same thing as "Republicans call for government shut down" is if the Democrats intentionally wrote funding for Obamacare provisions into otherwise mundane government day-to-day budget items; and did so for as wide of a berth as possible. Which is hardly the first time it's happened over such a contentious issue (Republicans basically went "You want to actually pay the soldiers? Yeah. We're gonna need some F-22s" half a decade ago by doing the same thing with defense budget allocation; to say nothing about Clinton and his wacky line-item vetoes 15 years ago arguably being the catalyst for things as they are now), but it's really just a finely orchestrated ploy on the part of Democrats to paint Republicans as trying to bring the entire government down to get what they want when it's really not their intent.

In that respect it is quite different from the budget crisis last year, which really kinda was just Republicans being obstructionist beyond the point of common sense so they would look good on TV.

Edited July 27, 2012 by Gilda

[turbojet]

Don't worry, I am not concerned. I just know that I am more concerned on what the Congress will look like when a third of the HoR is reshuffled. I consider it more important at times than the Presidental Election.

No. Just...no.

I'm sure this stems from a completely elementary belief that Congress makes laws, President enforces them, and the Supreme Court interprets. This is false not because it is systematically incorrect, but it ignores a vast amount of important stuff that goes into making a law and putting it into place. I would explain in finer detail, but I just don't have the time to give you a wall of text. Maybe later.

Edited July 27, 2012 by turbojet

[Tornado]

I can give a quick version which might help cover one aspect of it:

The President has more swagger and hold over any lawmaking ability than any Congressman or Congressional Committee. This includes but is by no means not limited to being the only person in the country who can go so far Congress to fuck off (probably not literally, now that Nixon is dead) and appeal directly to the people to try to get things passed instead; because when the President wants to go on TV and say something people do listen regardless of whether they hate him or not because he makes news. No government official has had that amount of pull with the American people without being the President since Robert Kennedy was assassinated.

That isn't to say that mid-term and Congressional elections aren't important, because they are; but unless there is a complete ideological turnover (and I'd hesitate to call even that Tea Party nonsense from a couple years ago as an example of that. I'm talking major changes. The first election following 9/11 would probably be the most recent example) and/or the sitting President is a pushover as a public figure, it isn't remotely as important.

Edited July 27, 2012 by Gilda

[CrownSlayers Shadow]

No. Just...no.

I'm sure this stems from a completely elementary belief that Congress makes laws, President enforces them, and the Supreme Court interprets. This is false not because it is systematically incorrect, but it ignores a vast amount of important stuff that goes into making a law and putting it into place. I would explain in finer detail, but I just don't have the time to give you a wall of text. Maybe later.

From my understanding, it was that Congress proposes, vote, and can potentially repeal laws, which then get passed to the President in which he either signs or vetoes it (or lets it sit on his desk for a while, in which it becomes law anyway after a time period from what I've heard), which then is either put into law anyway by a number of votes from Congress or just dies there from which they either start over or forget about it, and then it takes a number of years for said law to be put into effect. Supreme Court basically interprets the law or strikes it down as unconstitutional from the Constitution itself.

And that's not even covering the difference in how the HoR and Senate propose laws and how things go in the Legislative branch. I'd definitely say that the Legislative is the more complex of the branches. Is that a good simple version or did I screw up and miss a lot more details that go into it?

[Ethan Thomas]

As much as I don't care for either candidate in this election, my odds are going towards Obama. Why? Well, I don't think that Romney has a snowball's chance in Hell. I can probably go around and conduct a survey among Republicans on if they supported Mitt Romney for President, and about 80% of them would shrug their shoulders.

I don't think that the party, honestly, has faith in Mitt. He can't even take up the position of haggling the new recent Healthcare Plan with all of the other Republicans because Mitt Romney passed legislation that was almost identical when he was Governor.

What do I think will happen this November? I think that we are going to see the lowest voter turnout within a decade because people just don't know/care who to vote for.

[then again, who knows, we have seen stranger stuff happen; we reelected George W. Bush Jr. for a second term]

Edited July 27, 2012 by Ethan Thomas