[Discussion] The American Politics Discussion Thread

[Zet]

So it appears Romney is still crying over the results, and is now saying that Clinton told him that Sandy won Obama the election.

source: http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2012/1...n_2137343.html

alternative source: http://www.wbir.com/news/article/242...y-helped-Obama

[KingCharizard]

Originally Posted by Zet

So it appears Romney is still crying over the results, and is now saying that Clinton told him that Sandy won Obama the election.

source: http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2012/1...n_2137343.html

alternative source: http://www.wbir.com/news/article/242...y-helped-Obama

I gotta admit it helped him win, seeing how he reacted to the disaster I was even impressed.

[Rodriguezjames55]

to be honestly Romney screwed himself up if i was him i would have took sandy as a gift from God and help those in need to woo over the middle class who view him as uncaring and potentionally take some blue states

i honestly hate the two party system #mexicoismoredemocratic

[Went]

Originally Posted by Rodriguezjames55

to be honestly Romney screwed himself up if i was him i would have took sandy as a gift from God and help those in need to woo over the middle class who view him as uncaring and potentionally take some blue states

i honestly hate the two party system #mexicoismoredemocratic

By the time Sandy hit, the chances of Romney winning were incredibly small and there was nothing he possibly could have done to pick up any blue states- "help those in need?" How? Obama could look presidential and in charge, but Romney held no position of power anywhere and any attempts to do anything would have been seen as propaganda, as it happened with the Ohio rally. And, as I said, his position in the state polls by the last week was so horrible only Obama pulling off a Bush-like disaster ala Katrina could have possibly helped him. Christie was the nail on the coffin but he was already dead by then.

Also, Mexico is more democratic? A country where one party ruled for 71 straight years, and was only defeated for two terms before returning to power recently? Even Utah has had more alternance of power.

[FreakyLocz14]

Originally Posted by KingCharizard

I gotta admit it helped him win, seeing how he reacted to the disaster I was even impressed.

We'll be pushing for an investigation to determine to real winner, and not the rigged result that was televised.

[Jay_37040]

Originally Posted by FreakyLocz14

We'll be pushing for an investigation to determine to real winner, and not rigged result that was televised.

Please, no more conspiracies. Romney accepted defeat. He congratulated Obama. It's over. Let it be and move on. This need of yours and others to insist that Obama could only have won if he cheated in some way is not at all what your country needs. Right now, it needs everyone working together to solve problems. Whining and pointing fingers does nothing except to satisfy bloated egos.

[FreakyLocz14]

Originally Posted by Jay_37040

Please, no more conspiracies. Romney accepted defeat. He congratulated Obama. It's over. Let it be and move on. This need of yours and others to insist that Obama could only have won if he cheated in some way is not at all what your country needs. Right now, it needs everyone working together to solve problems. Whining and pointing fingers does nothing except to satisfy bloated egos.

Romney was never really running for President. He is a Bilderger just like Obama. The result was predetermined before the primaries even began.

[Zet]

Originally Posted by FreakyLocz14

We'll be pushing for an investigation to determine to real winner, and not rigged result that was televised.

Sorta like how Bush won when Fox News said he won, and then every other place said Al Gore didn't win because Fox News said Bush won?

[FreakyLocz14]

Originally Posted by Zet

Sorta like how Bush won when Fox News said he won, and then every other place said Al Gore didn't win because Fox News said Bush won?

Bush when the U.S. Supreme Court said he won. Fox News had nothing to do with it.

[Jay_37040]

Originally Posted by FreakyLocz14

Romney was never really running for President. He is a Bilderger just like Obama. The result was predetermined before the primaries even began.

Yeah. Right. Okay. I'm going to assume you're referring to the Bilderberg Group, and if you are then let me just say that's probably the most ridiculous assertion I've ever heard. It's not even remotely accurate which makes me wonder why you'd make such a claim.

Here's a nice little list of participants, past and current:

Thomas E. Donilon (2012),[3] Executive Vice President for Law and Policy at Fannie Mae (1999–2005), Current National Security Advisor for The White House.
Roger Altman (2008, 2009),[2][97] Deputy Treasury Secretary from 1993–1994, Founder and Chairman of Evercore Partners
George W. Ball (1954, 1993),[98] Under Secretary of State 1961–1968, Ambassador to U.N. 1968 (deceased)
Sandy Berger (1999),[99] National Security Advisor, 1997–2001
Timothy Geithner (2008, 2009),[2][97] Treasury Secretary
Dick Gephardt (2012),[3] former Congressman and House Majority Leader
Lee H. Hamilton (1997),[8][better source needed] former Congressman
Christian Herter,[100] (1961, 1963, 1964, 1966), 53rd United States Secretary of State (deceased)
Charles Douglas Jackson (1957, 1958, 1960),[101] Special Assistant to the President (deceased)
Joseph E. Johnson[102] (1954), President Carnegie Endowment for International Peace (deceased)
Henry Kissinger (1957, 1964, 1966, 1971, 1973, 1974, 1977, 2008, 2009, 2010,[20] 2011, 2012[3]),[68][103] 56th United States Secretary of State
Richard Perle (2011), Chairman of the Defense Policy Board Advisory Committee 2001–2003, United States Assistant Secretary of Defense 1981–1987 [69]
Colin Powell (1997),[8][better source needed] 65th United States Secretary of State
Condoleezza Rice (2008),[2] 66th United States Secretary of State
George P. Shultz (2008),[2] 60th United States Secretary of State
Lawrence Summers,[97] Director of the National Economic Council
Paul Volcker[when?],[97] Chair of the President's Economic Recovery Advisory Board and Chairman of the Federal Reserve from 1979–1987
Bing West (2010),[20] author and former Assistant Secretary of Defense for International Security Affairs
Robert Zoellick (2008–2012),[2][3][11][19][20] former Trade Representative, former Deputy Secretary of State and former President of the World Bank Group

Presidents

Bill Clinton (1991),[93][94] President 1993–2001
Gerald Ford (1964, 1966),[12][104] President 1974–1977 (deceased)

Senators

Tom Daschle (2008),[2] Senator from South Dakota 1987-2005
John Edwards (2004),[105][106] Senator from North Carolina 1999–2005
Chuck Hagel (1999, 2000),[107] Senator from Nebraska 1997–2009
John Kerry (2012),[3] Senator from Massachusetts 1985–present
Sam Nunn (1996, 1997),[8][better source needed] Senator from Georgia 1972–1997

Governors

Mitchell Daniels (2012)[108] Governor of Indiana 2004–present
Jon Huntsman, Jr. (2012),[3] Governor of Utah 2005–2009
Rick Perry (2007),[109] Governor of Texas 2000–present
Mark Sanford (2008),[110] Governor of South Carolina 2003–2011
Kathleen Sebelius (2008),[2] Governor of Kansas 2003-2009

Now, unless you have information that I don't, please, show it.

[Rodriguezjames55]

Originally Posted by Went

By the time Sandy hit, the chances of Romney winning were incredibly small and there was nothing he possibly could have done to pick up any blue states- "help those in need?" How? Obama could look presidential and in charge, but Romney held no position of power anywhere and any attempts to do anything would have been seen as propaganda, as it happened with the Ohio rally. And, as I said, his position in the state polls by the last week was so horrible only Obama pulling off a Bush-like disaster ala Katrina could have possibly helped him. Christie was the nail on the coffin but he was already dead by then.

Also, Mexico is more democratic? A country where one party ruled for 71 straight years, and was only defeated for two terms before returning to power recently? Even Utah has had more alternance of power.

mexico has more than 2 parties the people vote the same party over and over but their elections are far more democratic

[FreakyLocz14]

Originally Posted by Rodriguezjames55

mexico has more than 2 parties the people vote the same party over and over but their elections are far more democratic

Thanks, I needed a good laugh! Election fraud ran rampant in Mexico for decades.

[TRIFORCE89]

Originally Posted by Rodriguezjames55

mexico has more than 2 parties the people vote the same party over and over but their elections are far more democratic

Uhhh..... how so? O_o Do tell

[Scarf]

The election's over, but the mad, mad world of American politics goes on.

Susan Rice, ambassador to the United Nations, has been under attack from Republicans because she might be nominated for Hilary Clinton's job (Secretary of State) if and when Clinton steps down. Why they doing this? According to John McCain and other Republican senators it's because they have deep, deep concerns about the Bengazi attack (in which the ambassador to Libya was killed) and Rice's subsequent appearances on television to deliver some info to the people about it, info which wasn't the whole picture and didn't include talk of it being a terrorist attack. This, they say, is UNACCEPTABLE. It's POLITICAL MANEUVERING! And so on. Even after McCain and others got to talk to Rice and the acting director of the CIA for an hour face-to-face behind closed doors, they still have so, so, so many questions and couldn't possibly consider confirming Rice to the post of Secretary of State without those questions being answered.

Oh, and TOTALLY NOT RELATED, but Rice is one of two people whose names have been floating around as possible replacements for Clinton, the other name being John Kerry, who all the Republicans says they would love to confirm. The fact that Kerry is a sitting senator from Massachusetts (where Republicans just lost Scott Brown's seat to Elizabeth Warren) and would have to vacate that seat and cause a special election to fill it and which might possibly give Republicans an extra seat in the Senate which they could use to filibuster everything Democrats try to get done there and subsequently call Obama's leadership ineffectual has absolutely nothing at all to do with Republicans' attacks on Rice. No, nothing at all.

[TRIFORCE89]

Another week over, another deal rejected, and America inches closer to the edge of the cliff.

How do you think this will end? What solution or compromise would you like to see?


I kind of like that Boehner upped the tax level to 1million. $250,000 seemed too low to me. That's middle class in my eyes. Obama bumped it to $400,000. Better. But I think the "sweet spot" compromise is $750,000.

Increasing marginal income taxes on upper income earners aside (because that's really the simplest part of this puzzle, I think), I'm hoping to see more real specifics on spending cuts. Because right now the Republicans seem to be suggesting a vague "cut something" and the Democrats are giving an equally unproductive "we'll talk about cuts after you agree to the tax increase". Cuts need to happen. There was efficiencies to be had, but I don't think anyone is being specific enough yet

Also, tax code reform and implementing more of what was covered in Simpson-Bowles as they've already done a lot of legwork

[donavannj]

The numbers don't really even support $250,000 as the upper portion of middle-class, however, especially when the median and mean incomes are between $40,000 and $60,000. The upper ceiling is far closer to $150,000.

I think a decent compromise would be a graduated increase in the rate from $250,000, with it peaking to the pre-Bush rates at $1 million this year, and gradually returning the rate to normal all the way down to $250,000 over a period of 7 years.

[TRIFORCE89]

Originally Posted by donavannj

The numbers don't really even support $250,000 as the upper portion of middle-class, however, especially when the median and mean incomes are between $40,000 and $60,000. The upper ceiling is far closer to $150,000.

I recognize those numbers, I just... don't like them.

If you're trying to live in the suburbs with what is traditionally viewed as a middle class lifestyle, you'll likely need an income of at least $125,000. What's considered upper-middle today, seems to really be what the true middle class once was, is supposed to be, and hopefully will be again - in my eyes anyway.

The middle class is disappearing, I don't think it helps to speed up the process.

Around $750,000 is where the "1%" tends to start, and I don't think households with an income of $250,000 are in the same boat as millionaires and billionaires. If $750,000 is too high a line, I'd settle for $500,000 around 37.8% and 1million+ at 39.6%.

Also... if anyone can clear this up for me since I'm a Canadian. Do you guys have a State-level income tax? Or is just things like sales taxes?

[donavannj]

Well, that's where the buying power required to have a "middle-class" life is right now, I agree, at least for a family of 4. You used to get that quality of life on far less money, but inflation has driven things upwards in price while wages have not caught up.

Oh, yes, we do have state-level income taxes. As far as I'm aware, every state has income taxes. States also have property taxes and sales taxes, though some states only collect one or neither of these latter two.

[Mr. X]

Just a random thought, but wouldn't laws that ban gay marriage be a violation of the first amendment? As their are religions that support and allow gay marriages, then any law that forbids gay marriage is a violation of the free practice provisions.

[Toujours]

That's not quite right. If you had a religion where the doctrine was to get gay married then maybe there would be a case, but things can be illegalized that a religion tolerates.

[Mr. X]

The idea behind the free practice provisions were to prevent government from interfering in religion, and supporting one religion over another.

Even though it isn't the doctrine, religions that would normally allow gay marriages can't due to laws prohibiting gay marriage. This is government interfering with Religion.

Alternatively, laws banning gay marriages are showing support for certian religions. Given that a large portion of people against gay marriage are so because they believe marriage to be a religious instution, rather then a government instution, then banning gay marriage can be seen as supporting religions that are against gay marriage.

Personally, this is why I've believed that we need to separate marriage by Religion and State. Let all the rights normally given to married couples be given out via the state marriage, and then let the Religious people choose a church marriage. Marriages done under the state wouldn't apply as a Religious marriage, however people who choose a Religious marriage can choose to have it also apply as a state marriage so they would be eligible for the benefits that it gives out.

This would satisfy both parties, as it protects the sanctity of marriage, when relating to Religion (Giving the Religious crowd what they want) while also giving equal rights and benefits to gays and lesbians. (Giving gays and lesbians what they want, and also allowing them the option of a Religious marriage if they so desire and if they find a church that allows it.)

[Scarf]

Originally Posted by Mr. X

The idea behind the free practice provisions were to prevent government from interfering in religion, and supporting one religion over another.

Even though it isn't the doctrine, religions that would normally allow gay marriages can't due to laws prohibiting gay marriage. This is government interfering with Religion.

Alternatively, laws banning gay marriages are showing support for certian religions. Given that a large portion of people against gay marriage are so because they believe marriage to be a religious instution, rather then a government instution, then banning gay marriage can be seen as supporting religions that are against gay marriage.

Personally, this is why I've believed that we need to separate marriage by Religion and State. Let all the rights normally given to married couples be given out via the state marriage, and then let the Religious people choose a church marriage. Marriages done under the state wouldn't apply as a Religious marriage, however people who choose a Religious marriage can choose to have it also apply as a state marriage so they would be eligible for the benefits that it gives out.

This would satisfy both parties, as it protects the sanctity of marriage, when relating to Religion (Giving the Religious crowd what they want) while also giving equal rights and benefits to gays and lesbians. (Giving gays and lesbians what they want, and also allowing them the option of a Religious marriage if they so desire and if they find a church that allows it.)

But there are religions that want to practice polygamy and child brides and we don't allow that, thankfully. I mean, I want people to be able to get married if they want, but I don't think we should go down the religion road to make it happen.

I agree that we need to divorce (haha) the idea of marriage from religion. Sure, if you personally want your marriage to be religious then that's fine, but marriage is not something religion should have a say on except when that marriage is taking place within its doors.

[Mr. X]

I see nothing wrong with polygamy, really. If a person wants to get married to multiple partners, and they want the same thing, then they should be allowed to. They would be limited to a Religious marriage in this case though.

Point on child brides though, I didn't consider that.

Although, I'd say that marriages under either system would have to comply with the age of consent for the state. Then again, this would go against the intentions of the separation.

[CarcharOdin]

Don't like gay marriage? Don't get one.
Don't like that gays want to / can get married? Too bad.

That's my view.

[AdrianD]

Im sure there will be no deal done by Monday night, but does anyone have any faith that something will be done within the next month?

I personally would hope so trying to be optimistic, but the pessimism in me says it wont be done and it will just stay as is. Both parties suck.