The General American Politics Thread

[Flyboy Fox]

There aren't enough facepalms in the world...

[Treacher]

There aren't enough facepalms in the world...

[Patticus]

Why exactly is it acceptable for American politicians to openly display such bigoted, homophobic views, and even use them as reasons to vote for them in their campaign ads and in their speeches? Who in their right mind would want to repeal Don't Ask Don't Tell when the military itself had been opposed to it for years prior to its eventual abolition?

The very real prospect of the election of far-right American politicians to the presidency in the 21st Century, of the enthronement of people who espouse such terrible beliefs, which go against all good sense and reason (and scientific knowledge), who cling on to their deafeningly outdated Cold War suspicions or hatreds of the Left, is a horrifying and incredibly scary prospect for the wider world. As scary as a Russian re-conquest of Eastern Europe, for some.

And to those of you who ask why it's any of the outside world's business - what goes on in American politics, particularly in regards to elections, has a tremendous impact all around the world. It could mean the difference between peace and war, between a senseless conflict and a tense peace, between life and death. That's all the difference in the world.

Here's a video about Mitt Romney:

The music is all geared to painting him in a bad light, but if the points it raises questions about are true, what exactly might that man be hiding from us? Electoral fraud? Tax evasion? Affairs? It can't possibly be normal procedure for the top aids of politicians to walk out of their offices with computer hard drives in hand when their bosses' reigns are over... can it?

[E-25]

I, erm...

...I love how he's so blunt; nice change of pace from lying politicians at least.

The like button really wasn't enough to convey how I felt about this response, ^^

I'll miss Cain though... same with Trump. So much gold... so little time.

Edited December 7, 2011 by E-25

[Tornado]

The music is all geared to painting him in a bad light, but if the points it raises questions about are true, what exactly might that man be hiding from us? Electoral fraud? Tax evasion? Affairs? It can't possibly be normal procedure for the top aids of politicians to walk out of their offices with computer hard drives in hand when their bosses' reigns are over... can it?

Think this:

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=f26tqqbvj3M

But not being used as a joke. Happens all the time actually. No truth to it whatsoever, but no proof that it didn't happen; so can you imagine?

Edited December 7, 2011 by ChristmasJack

[Patticus]

I see... Well then, it's still quite remarkable that America has no laws against politicians openly lying about their opponents and therefore misleading the public they're supposed to be serving. It seems incredibly corrupt to me. Hardly a practice that the so-called "land of the brave and home of the free" should be endorsing.

No truth to it whatsoever, but no proof that it didn't happen; so can you imagine?

I guess the concept of 'innocent until proven guilty' isn't very popular over there...

[SuperStingray]

I, erm...

...I love how he's so blunt; nice change of pace from lying politicians at least.

And hey, at least he remembered his policy this time.

Really, the only candidates that still haven't made complete fools of themselves are Jon Huntsman, MItt Romney and Ron Paul and only because Huntsman is essentially a paper weight for podiums and Romney is too bland to be crazy- Paul actually has honest to god consistency in his political position, so I respect him, but I just can't get behind libertarianism. At gunpoint, I would vote for him though, since he looks like he has a sincere idea of what he wants to do in office rather than pandering for voters- Above anything, I'd rather have a guy who gets something done rather than waste space in the oval office while the country crumbles. Other than that... Jon Stewart doesn't even need writers any more- these peoples are already parodies of themselves. And with Donald Fucking Trump moderating a debate? Oh god, get me the popcorn.

Edited December 8, 2011 by SuperStingray

[NiGHTS]

And hey, at least he remembered his policy this time.

Really, the only candidates that still haven't made complete fools of themselves are Jon Huntsman, MItt Romney and Ron Paul and only because Huntsman is essentially a paper weight for podiums and Romney is too bland to be crazy- Paul actually has honest to god consistency in his political position, so I respect him, but I just can't get behind libertarianism. At gunpoint, I would vote for him though, since he looks like he has a sincere idea of what he wants to do in office rather than pandering for voters- Above anything, I'd rather have a guy who gets something done rather than waste space in the oval office while the country crumbles. Other than that... Jon Stewart doesn't even need writers any more- these peoples are already parodies of themselves. And with Donald Fucking Trump moderating a debate? Oh god, get me the popcorn.

I honestly don't see why Trump shouldn't hold a debate. What? You ONLY want the :"news" people, who are already corrupt, to host every debate? Sadly, I gotta say this. Trump is a businessman. He is a "normal" person just like all of us. YES you might not like his guts, but he isn't the politicians that screwed US up. I say, let whoever hold a debate, let the normal people ask the candidates questions for once.

[Tornado]

Most politicians are successful businessmen. Trump is a successful businessman who did a several month bout of political grandstanding to boost ratings of his failing reality show. I want him to stay as far as fucking possible away from this.

I see... Well then, it's still quite remarkable that America has no laws against politicians openly lying about their opponents and therefore misleading the public they're supposed to be serving. It seems incredibly corrupt to me. Hardly a practice that the so-called "land of the brave and home of the free" should be endorsing.

America has plenty of laws against slander and libel. Nothing in that video actually constitutes slander or libel.

Edited December 8, 2011 by ChristmasJack

[Patticus]

America has plenty of laws against slander and libel. Nothing in that video actually constitutes slander or libel.

[Tornado]

It may not constitute slander or libel, but it's making spurious claims about a politician with no evidence to back them up. Its intention, as with pretty much every other political ad in the US these days, is to wilfully mislead the public - this time into not voting for Mitt Romney. Why isn't there a law requiring there to be solid evidence behind every political ad or speech claim regarding fellow politicians? Why is that ad and others like it actually deemed to be acceptable?

Because no claim is actually being made (it is actually posing a question, albeit a question probably posed with the intention of misleading); and if you'll allow me to be blunt, innocent until proven guilty actually applies to American laws surrounding free speech rather than the opposite as is the case with English libel laws. I'd happily put up with crap like this if it means laws restricting free speech are still limited to dealing with what was actually said rather than being written with the purpose of restricting intent behind speech, because how the hell do you prove intent behind speech unless you just act as if they are guilty by default?

If people are stupid enough to actually be swayed by something like that, then it wasn't really worth worrying about where their vote might have gone otherwise because they would have eventually been swayed by something equally outrageous long before the election was over.

Edited December 8, 2011 by ChristmasJack

[CrownSlayers Shadow]

Because in America, we believe that it's up to the people to be educated enough to know what is bullshit and what isn't.

That's holds no water. Even in America, we fall for bullshit just as much as we avoid it, and you can be educated all you want, but you can still be naive. We may be more educated than other parts of the globe, but we're not saints by comparison.

Furthermore, you mention that it doesn't seem like a practice that should be tolerated in the Land of the Free.

Wouldn't banning this sort of phony garbage actually constitute as LESS freedom?

I'm not sure you're aware, but freedom of speech doesn't fully mean you can say whatever the hell you want with no consequences. I don't think I need to tell you that you're not going to get away with yelling "Fire!" in a theater without being arrested for it if serious damage occurs from it.

And when you're a government official, there are clear things what you can and cannot do even with that freedom. You may not say anything that counts as slander or libel nor will you get arrested for them, but you will likely regret saying some things that come off as offensive when it comes to re-election if you're careless.

Of course, even in the US, slander and libel even if you're not a government official is a crime. There's the matter of proving it to be slander or libel, but it's not allowed from what I can tell. If you know that already, then good.

Edited December 8, 2011 by ChaosSupremeSonic

[CrownSlayers Shadow]

Please refer to ChristmasJack's post.

I know what the hell Tornado/ChristmasJack said, and I agree. But I'm referring to what Patticus said regarding slander and libel and how even in the Home of Free Speech such as American, that shit is not allowed by law if found in the court of law. (boy I probably worded that wrong)

You can criticize, you can make assumptions, and you can have an opinion, but if that opinion goes beyond being an opinion and into something more destructive, than it's a problem...actually, I'm pretty sure we've had this same discussion once before in another government related topic.

He articulated it perfectly. To ban "unsavory" content is completely contradictory to the principles upon which this country was founded. We live in a free country where people are allowed to go on TV and make fools of theirselves if they want.

But we don't live in a country where people can slander each other and get away with legally. We may be less restrictive about it than the Europeans are because of the 1^st Amendment and no it isn't easy to prove as a result, but if it's found out we don't let it fly.

By your logic, there should have been several people all over the political spectrum who would be in trouble with the law.

Actually according to my logic, that depends on whether those people's words actually caused harm to the way a person is living. Yell "Fire!" in a theater pretending there's an actual fire and I promise you that you will be arrested if the panicking people end up stampeding on someone to death. Likewise, have an audience that incites people to go on a rampage of some sort and I guarantee there will be some serious consequences.

It wouldn't be any different on or off the political spectrum.

The first negative campaign television ad was for Lyndon Johnson. It showed a little girl getting killed by a nuke and implied that his opponent would bring about a nuclear war. The campaign itself removed the ad because of its sheer idiocy, but the damage was done; the public, being remarkably naive at the time, was swayed in favor of Johnson, at least temporarily. Yet the ad was never censored, nor did Johnson face any legal repercussions. That's a GOOD thing. http://en.m.wikipedi..._(advertisement)

I take it you've only been reading part of post, because unless I need to bold it in 48 font size, I'll say it clearly this just this once before I continue to beat you upside the head with the point. If it does actual damage such as inciting imminent unlawful actions (i.e. a riot), free speech is not going to protect anyone from being punished.

And since you want to use Wikipedia, let me give you a page that shows you exactly what I'm talking about in this argument.

Edited December 8, 2011 by ChaosSupremeSonic

[SuperStingray]

I honestly don't see why Trump shouldn't hold a debate. What? You ONLY want the :"news" people, who are already corrupt, to host every debate? Sadly, I gotta say this. Trump is a businessman. He is a "normal" person just like all of us. YES you might not like his guts, but he isn't the politicians that screwed US up. I say, let whoever hold a debate, let the normal people ask the candidates questions for once.

I never said I don't want to see Trump hold the debate, I'm just saying he's nuts. He's only as "normal" as everyone else who hosts a reality show, has a private jet with a hot tub and gets kicked out of Aspen for his trophy wife and ex-trophy wife having a catfight. Yes I know being rich doesn't exclude you from being an average citizen, but it doesn't help when you've already got your head in the clouds.

[Neon]

Rick Perry Is A Political Genius

Edited December 8, 2011 by Neon

[CrownSlayers Shadow]

No need to get angry, Chaos. I'm just trying to tell you why you're wrong.

And you're not doing a good job of paying attention, nor are you doing a good job at proving me wrong.

You keep bringing up these laws without realizing that these are for things that can be proven wrong. As stupid as Perry's ad is, there was not one thing that could be considered slander. Deal with it.

Uh-huh.

And you know for someone trying to tell me why I'm wrong, let me be blunt about this part: NO WHERE IN ANY OF MY POSTS HAD ANYTHING TO SAY ABOUT PERRY'S AD! Not one damn thing; you won't even find the words "Perry" or "Ad" anywhere in it. And let me just say that I couldn't care any less about it right now. I certainly can't be wrong about something I wasn't even talking about, now can I?

I've made it clear that I'm talking about Slander and Libel and how, if found out, will punish the person responsible regardless of whether they have a political office or not (i.e. Any damn person in the country). Proving it wrong is the whole point in making the case in the first place if it escalates.

And the fact that I flat out said I agreed with what Tornado/ChristmasJack said only for you to tell me to get over it only goes to show that you're not even grasping my point here.

Edited December 9, 2011 by ChaosSupremeSonic

[CrownSlayers Shadow]

Right there you were respoding to my comment which was a response to Patticus' comment which directly stated that he wants this sort of advertising to be banned.

And what exactly did I say about Perry's Ad? Or did I even say anything about it?

That sentence was very damn clear and to the point when it said "We fall for bullshit just as much as we avoid it" when you said we believe the people know whether something is bullshit or not.

You stood in agreement with him,

Nice try, but no.

"This holds no water" means that is a weak point or holds no weight to what you're saying. It does not mean "I agree" with anyone. And you're also stretching an inch into a mile because that whole post was talking about the same thing I'm talking about right now and still said nothing about Perry's AD containing slander. If I was going to stand in agreement with him, I would have flat out said that I agree with him.

so of course it's only logical to conclude that you were talking about content such as the Perry ad.

If I said absolutely nothing about Perry's ad right from the start, then it would be taking a huge leap to assume I was. Especially when Perry's Ad wasn't mentioned in the next posts after it.

I don't know if you actually weren't (in which case, what the hell were you referring to?) or if you are just backpedalling.

I was refering to where you were said banning the sort of garbage would constitute less freedom, which I came in to say that even in the Land of the Free, we're not free to slander other people which is what Patticus initially implied.

Edited December 9, 2011 by ChaosSupremeSonic

[Patticus]

I'm not saying that those ads should be banned, I'm saying that in order for politicians to make any allegations or implications about fellow politicians in their ads, or to raise questions about them, it should be made law that the politicians running the ads should have verifiable evidence either of genuine misconduct, or of such a nature that raising questions about potential misconduct are right and proper. Just saying "his top aid walked out with all the hard drives" without presenting any evidence to demonstrate that this actually took place, and without trying to ascertain why it happened, is not acceptable in the least - and that's probably the least worst allegation I've ever seen against another politician in an ad of this variety.

Saying things in ads which are intended to damage fellow politicians without supporting evidence to back them up shouldn't be allowed. It's grossly misleading for the general public, as many people are quite gullible and, if the Fox demagoguery's following is anything to go by, will believe just about anything if they see it on TV. If there is supporting evidence then by all means run the ads, the public should know about that stuff, but without it they've got nothing but baseless allegations and despicable slurs, and that, my friends, stinks to high heaven.

Edit: Anyone who's been here for a few years and ventures into discussions about international news will know I get very... passionate, where the Israel/Palestine situation comes up. So, ah, when Newt Gingrich starts playing for the votes of the powerful Jewish lobby groups by taking a dump on Palestinian history... yeah, I get pissed off.

Palestinian officials have reacted with dismay after the Republican presidential hopeful

Newt Gingrich said Palestinians were an "invented" people.

The Palestinian prime minister, Salam Fayyad, said Gingrich was denying "historical truths".

Gingrich said in an interview with The Jewish Channel that Palestinians were not a race of people because they had never had a state and because they were part of the Ottoman empire before the British mandate and Israel's creation.

"Remember, there was no Palestine as a state, [it was] part of the Ottoman empire," he said in a video excerpt posted online. "I think we have an invented Palestinian people who are in fact Arabs and historically part of the Arab community and they had the chance to go many places."

Fayyad demanded Gingrich "review history". He said: "From the beginning, our people have been determined to stay on their land."

Fayyad's comments were carried by the Palestinian news agency Wafa. "This, certainly, is denying historical truths," he said.

Gingrich's statements struck at the heart of Palestinian sensitivities about their national struggle. Hanan Ashrawi, a Palestinian politician, said Gingrich had "lost touch with reality" and his statements were "a cheap way to win [the] pro-Israel vote".

A spokesman for Hamas, which controls the Gaza Strip, called Gingrich's statements "shameful and disgraceful". "These statements … show genuine hostility toward Palestinians," the spokesman said.

[Tornado]

There's a difference between "telling it like it is because everyone else is afraid to" and "telling it like you think it is because you are insane."

Though in any case, the veil of superiority that the GoP has built around Gingrich has started crumbling already; so there is no doubt in my mind that he won't be the one to go at it against Obama next year. He's not even on the primary ballot in Ohio, last I checked.

Edited December 12, 2011 by ChristmasJack

[Patticus]

The only thing more terrifying than the Palestinians is the worldwide support they seem to have.

Strange, because I and many like me find Israel, its Mossad intelligence agency and the preferential American support they have enjoyed to be really quite frightening. The country is the most powerful in the region after all. Palestine sadly doesn't enjoy the same level of international support as Israel, in the west at least, going by the reactions from western leaders to their recent bid of nationhood at the U.N.

The one state solution stance that Newt has taken is deeply unhelpful, and isn't even recognised by most Israelis - and they're the ones you'd expect to have the most grievances against the Palestinians. It's only the disproportionately vocal minorities of extremist Jews, Muslims and Christians who take seriously the one state solutions (on either side) to the Israel-Palestine issue nowadays. Anyone with half a brain can see that denying the Palestinians their right to statehood is just going to prolong the conflict indefinitely, and that's in nobody's interests (except maybe those of the US arms industry), and even if the historical claims of the Palestinians are groundless (and I think they're at least as valid as wanting the return of a state 2,000 years dead), those people have formed a strong national identity over the half a century or more which to my mind is just as valid as the Israeli people's national identity.

[Tornado]

One who is able to recognize that there is more to the Isreal/Pakistan quagmire than "support Isreal unanimously forever just because we as a collective of nations fucked up so badly in 1948" does not necessarily "hate freedom."

And while that land never "belonged" to Palestine in the sense that Isreal can do whatever they want with it, it is stupid to say that Isreal was there first.

I also wouldn't say that Isreal's foreign policy, which makes the U.S. during the 1950s look like saints and basically boils down to Bomb ALL The Things, can be called "impecabble" under any definition of the word (whether said actions are justified or not).

Edited December 13, 2011 by ChristmasJack

[Patticus]

The Israeli government has an impeccable foreign policy that I agree with almost unanimously. I can't even comprehend how people couldn't support Israel. It was there first, it is the constant target of those who hate freedom, and it's the only country in the Middle-East that supports democracy. I am stunned that anyone who has any experience with freedom is opposed to the state of Israel.

Warning: Little rant.

You seem to enjoy saying that word. Freedom. It's like a mantra you Americans repeat every time you, your interests or your special friends come under threat, or just because you want to lecture the world on how goddamn free you are, almost like a beaten wife lecturing her friends on how good her husband is. I don't think you people really understand the meaning of the word any more. Your founders knew it well, because they lived for most of their lives as British subjects in British colonies and experienced the restrictions imposed by parliament first-hand, but it has since been repeated so much and on so many occasions that it has become your go-to response to perceived threats.

I don't believe you're nearly as "free" as you think you are anyway. There's always a boss, a ruler, a sovereign you must obey the orders of, and they in turn always have their own masters, who are fewer in number but that much more powerful. America, and indeed all of western society, is as feudal today as it was in the 12th century (try fitting the hierarchies of armies, politics and business into feudal pyramids; they're a perfect match), but it's in denial, just like it's in denial over its continuing imperialism, just like it's in denial over the raging class wars which continue to burn beneath the skin of our nations.

But I wouldn't expect you, or many others today, to accept those notions.

But, I digress. On to the post I was intending to make!

In regards to it "being there first" - that's no excuse, and it opens a Pandora's Box for countless other peoples' claims to lands they were removed from, which I won't list because I think you're all smart enough to think up examples. It's not workable and causes conflict with those who have since settled those places.

In regards to "people hating freedom targeting it", you're talking about the people whose mindsets and world views you would find utterly incomprehensible. Even today you just would not be able to understand them. But they do love freedom, hence the Arab Spring (which looks set to see conservative right-wing Islamic parties elected across the board, because they're that much better organised than the liberal opposition they face), hence the Palestinians' hating the oppressive boundaries and illegal settlements the Israelis have forced upon them. They want to be a free people as much as any other.

[Tornado]

Democracy ≠ Sainthood. The United States as a government knows that all too well from the 80 years we spent toppling stable governments so we could install "Democracies" that we knew would support the feelings of the people so long as they coincided with ours.

[Velotix von Skruviktorrius]

They want to be free- as long as everyone shares their religion and bends over for Sharia Law. Right. Democracy, my friend. Israel supports it. The Palestinians don't. Pick a side.

Though the logic behind this statement is obvious and understandable, note that in saying this, you are also saying "we will only support the people we agree with"; consequently you are also saying "we will shun and boycott all those who disagree with us".

Or in other words, "I will only work with you if you have the correct opinion on a matter."

This is a very natural human reaction, frankly, but on an international diplomatic level it's very problematic.

[Velotix von Skruviktorrius]

What I find the most interesting in politics is the fact that the international right and the left have literally completely incompatible mindsets.

By my earlier post I was trying to imply, politely, that for someone apparently so obsessed with freedom - and I use that phrasing deliberately for emphasis of the above - you're remarkably closed-minded to the idea that people have the freedom to refuse freedom despite the paradox that suggests; or indeed that freedom may not be an absolute concept in the first place - that it means different things to different people.

What I was driving at is that your view is not necessarily incorrect, but that it comes with certain consequences and implications you may not have realised - also, that you are making assumptions on the definition and application of freedom as a concept that you may take for granted without realising it.