So how do americans feel

gmc · Post by **gmc** » Thu Aug 30, 2012 8:28 am

About having a republican presidential candidate that seems hell bent on rolling back all the legislation allowing women access to family planning and ending the right to have an abortion in the states? Very medieval, basically it seems women are not to be trusted to make those kind of decisions for themselves. Seems to me the political language in the states has been severely curtailed. His economic policies are recognisably fascist and his social politics right wing. In ww2 the states went to war against fascism - at least in part, it's seems ironic the right has won the peace. Mind you the bastards are winning here as well.

YZGI · Post by **YZGI** » Thu Aug 30, 2012 9:03 am

gmc;1402469 wrote: About having a republican presidential candidate that seems hell bent on rolling back all the legislation allowing women access to family planning and ending the right to have an abortion in the states? Very medieval, basically it seems women are not to be trusted to make those kind of decisions for themselves. Seems to me the political language in the states has been severely curtailed. His economic policies are recognisably fascist and his social politics right wing. In ww2 the states went to war against fascism - at least in part, it's seems ironic the right has won the peace. Mind you the bastards are winning here as well.
Every time I watch the republicans speeches they remind me of televangelists preachers. I am a registered republican but I am not this new right wing bible thumping republican. I have no one to vote for at the moment. I will more than likely vote independent even though it seems a waste to do so.

Post by **LarsMac** » Thu Aug 30, 2012 10:37 am

YZGI;1402471 wrote: Every time I watch the republicans speeches they remind me of televangelists preachers. I am a registered republican but I am not this new right wing bible thumping republican. I have no one to vote for at the moment. I will more than likely vote independent even though it seems a waste to do so.

If all the people who said they wanted to vote for (insert independent candidate here) had actually voted for him, I think we could have busted the two-party system a long while back.

I am hoping that Ron Paul makes a concerted effort this year, but it doesn't look like that's going to happen.

I don't particularly like him, but I think he would do less harm in the white house than Brother Mitt, and he would defuse the radical Right's almost violent aversion to the incumbent.

If 'None of the Above' is a valid option on the ballot, I think that will be my choice.

AnneBoleyn · Post by **AnneBoleyn** » Thu Aug 30, 2012 12:06 pm

So how do americans feel

very depressed

gmc · Post by **gmc** » Thu Aug 30, 2012 12:45 pm

So what about Ron Paul? I gather the party establishment changed the rules to make the vote of his delegates immaterial.They also seem to be trying to rig the voting system to handicap the right of democrat supporters to vote, new registration rules etc. I occasionally look at the rachel maddow show which is where I am getting that from. On the face of it you have a real danger the right will take over in america and your left wing parties are almost non existent. By right wing I mean a party that will run things to suit big business to the detriment of ordinary people. I'm surprised there are not more heated debates about it on the forum. As a non-american it only concerns me so far as what daft things it will lead to in your foreign policy. We've already got a new arms race going and any chance for the various power blocs burying the hatchet seems to have been blown.

AnneBoleyn · Post by **AnneBoleyn** » Thu Aug 30, 2012 12:59 pm

What about Ron Paul?

Rachel Maddow is the best bet to get political news. I have all the same concerns you have gmc. People have power, but not if they don't use it. We are easily distracted as many of us tell ourselves "it doesn't matter who gets elected, I'm still phucked--so I'll get drunk". I'm looking at our news the same way a foreigner does---I just don't get it. Every four years I despise my fellow Americans. Wish I remembered how to turn on tune in drop out. What we're tuned into now is a hot mess of happy recuntlicans. Never a good thing.

Post by **LarsMac** » Thu Aug 30, 2012 1:01 pm

Ron Paul has spent most of his reputation, as well as money, on the republican race, this year.

It seems very late for him to make a drive at the office as an independent. He will need to launch a serious campaign yesterday to be taken serious, IMHO.

Unless his supporters can make a large number of voters take him seriously in the next month, he might as well pack up and go home.

That leaves us with Mr Obama, or Magical Mitt.

I tend to vote for the incumbent unless the other party comes up with someone I can really get behind.

What really worries me is the idea that the right gains more radicals in Congress, while Mitt takes the White House.

We would see the same sort of rubber stamp thing that got us in so deep in the first couple of years of this century.

AnneBoleyn · Post by **AnneBoleyn** » Thu Aug 30, 2012 1:10 pm

WARNING

Every four years I curse like a sailor. Pardon me in advance for my foul language yet to come.

Ahso! · Post by **Ahso!** » Thu Aug 30, 2012 1:26 pm

YZGI;1402471 wrote: Every time I watch the republicans speeches they remind me of televangelists preachers. I am a registered republican but I am not this new right wing bible thumping republican. I have no one to vote for at the moment. I will more than likely vote independent even though it seems a waste to do so.Why not vote for Obama then? He's everything the republican party was in the 90s when Clinton was president.

Seeing your party go off the winged cliff is nothing compared to not being represented at all any longer. The democratic party has moved to where the republicans use to be and liberalism is no longer anything more than a few voices in the background. You guys won. Rejoice!

I'll be voting for Gary Johnson. Not that I agree with libertarianism, I don't - it's just that it's the loudest non-establishment party around, and if by some miracle he was to win, the two established parties would join together (the likes of which we'd all be amazed at) to completely tie his hands. That said, he could do just enough in that scenario to make small but significant changes.

Gary Johnson is a more sensible libertarian than is Ron Paul, IMV.

tude dog · Post by **tude dog** » Thu Aug 30, 2012 1:27 pm

gmc;1402469 wrote: About having a republican presidential candidate that seems hell bent, , ,

What the heck you talking about?

My frustration is with babble like you just presented.

Seriously, I have no idea where you come up with that stuff. I listen to well reasoned liberal types, and appreciate a civil discussion. But what you just presented, uh, dang. What does one do with that, I have zero idea.

Ahso! · Post by **Ahso!** » Thu Aug 30, 2012 1:32 pm

LarsMac wrote:

We would see the same sort of rubber stamp thing that got us in so deep in the first couple of years of this century.I don't see that. The republican party looks very fractured to me.

tude dog · Post by **tude dog** » Thu Aug 30, 2012 1:42 pm

Ahso!;1402532 wrote: Gary Johnson is a more sensible libertarian than is Ron Paul, IMV.

That gave me a good laugh.:wah:

I understand where libertarians come from. I like the concept, though it is not a realistic position.

AnneBoleyn · Post by **AnneBoleyn** » Thu Aug 30, 2012 1:51 pm

tude dog;1402533 wrote: What the heck you talking about?

My frustration is with babble like you just presented.

Seriously, I have no idea where you come up with that stuff. I listen to well reasoned liberal types, and appreciate a civil discussion. But what you just presented, uh, dang. What does one do with that, I have zero idea.
The stuff gmc came up with is straight from the rethuglican platform. They (the thugs) do want to end all abortion. They do wish to interfere with women's health issues. That's what the heck he is talking about.

Ahso! · Post by **Ahso!** » Thu Aug 30, 2012 2:02 pm

tude dog;1402536 wrote: That gave me a good laugh.:wah:

I understand where libertarians come from. I like the concept, though it is not a realistic position.I think I understand where Libertarians come from too. Which Libertarian concepts do you most agree with specifically? What do you mean it's not " a realistic position" if you like the concept? Not supported by enough voters?

tude dog · Post by **tude dog** » Thu Aug 30, 2012 4:59 pm

Ahso!;1402540 wrote: I think I understand where Libertarians come from too. Which Libertarian concepts do you most agree with specifically? What do you mean it's not " a realistic position" if you like the concept? Not supported by enough voters?

As I understand, they are about strict construction in interpreting the US Constitution. That mirrors my thoughts on the Constitution.

They seem to have a phobia about the Federal Reserve which I don't understand.

Ron Paul in particular is an isolationist, and to me that is just plain silly, at best.

I don't pretend to know the whole libertarian movement, and considering some of the whacked out candidates who run under that banner of Libertarianism, makes the Democratic Party look sane.

I can't speak for Libertarians. Just I never seen a Libertarian I would vote for.

tude dog · Post by **tude dog** » Thu Aug 30, 2012 5:12 pm

AnneBoleyn;1402537 wrote: The stuff gmc came up with is straight from the rethuglican platform. They (the thugs) do want to end all abortion. They do wish to interfere with women's health issues. That's what the heck he is talking about.

Oh please. Quote the platform and spare me the rhetoric.

Ahso! · Post by **Ahso!** » Thu Aug 30, 2012 6:02 pm

tude dog;1402547 wrote: Ron Paul in particular is an isolationist, and to me that is just plain silly, at best.I didn't know this. I've listened to some of Paul's speeches and interviews and never heard him say he's an isolationist, but I could have missed it. I'd appreciate a reference or two.

Wandrin · Post by **Wandrin** » Thu Aug 30, 2012 6:02 pm

I'd be interested to see which candidates would line up from this quiz. See which presidential candidate you side with

Scrat · Post by **Scrat** » Thu Aug 30, 2012 7:32 pm

How do I feel about the candidates? Simple, they're both equally worthless. Further comment about Romney or Obama is pointless as the president of the USA does not make the decisions.

As for the ruling elite of America I have nothing good to say of any of them.

Post by **LarsMac** » Thu Aug 30, 2012 8:21 pm

Wandrin;1402551 wrote: I'd be interested to see which candidates would line up from this quiz. See which presidential candidate you side with

I suppose I should consider relinquishing my membership in the Republican party.

Ahso! · Post by **Ahso!** » Thu Aug 30, 2012 8:52 pm

Post by **LarsMac** » Thu Aug 30, 2012 8:57 pm

I am actually amazed that I sided with Mitt 20%

Wondering what that was.

Ahso! · Post by **Ahso!** » Thu Aug 30, 2012 9:03 pm

In the longer version, Gary Johnson is between Anderson and Obama. Obama should be much less percentage wise for me, but this quiz apparently only represents rhetoric as opposed to action.

Wandrin · Post by **Wandrin** » Thu Aug 30, 2012 10:18 pm

I came out with Jill Stein, Gary Anderson, Obama, Ron Paul, and Romney in that order.

koan · Post by **koan** » Thu Aug 30, 2012 10:42 pm

I was Jill Stein at 92%

It deeply concerns me that the next person I sided with was named "Rocky"

Apparently I side with 60% of Americans. Does that mean Green Party is the likely winner? haha

koan · Post by **koan** » Thu Aug 30, 2012 11:21 pm

oh. just figured something out with the site. They match up what you answered with what a politician most recently said. They take account for the fact that politicians adjust what they say based on reactions to what they said previously.

koan · Post by **koan** » Thu Aug 30, 2012 11:29 pm

Been avoiding a lot of news programs I normally watch because I can't stand election coverage from the States. I can't vote so it's just frustrating to watch. That being said... Republican catch phrase this time round "We Built It."

Sure. On the backs of slaves. With the labour of underpaid employees. Without profit sharing. ...And announcing it in a hall built with public funds.

Ouch. That's why I try not to watch.

Accountable · Post by **Accountable** » Fri Aug 31, 2012 3:40 am

gmc;1402469 wrote: About having a republican presidential candidate that seems hell bent on rolling back all the legislation allowing women access to family planning and ending the right to have an abortion in the states? Very medieval, basically it seems women are not to be trusted to make those kind of decisions for themselves. Seems to me the political language in the states has been severely curtailed. His economic policies are recognisably fascist and his social politics right wing. In ww2 the states went to war against fascism - at least in part, it's seems ironic the right has won the peace. Mind you the bastards are winning here as well.
We are a federal republic. Federal laws are supposed to be limited to interstate and international relations, despite the moves Washington makes and has made for 100 years to centralize power and control in DC. Intrastate and other issues are matters for the individual states to address.

I don't expect you to understand. Rail away. :yh_bye

Accountable · Post by **Accountable** » Fri Aug 31, 2012 3:46 am

tude dog;1402547 wrote: As I understand, they are about strict construction in interpreting the US Constitution. That mirrors my thoughts on the Constitution.Mine, too.

tude dog;1402547 wrote: They seem to have a phobia about the Federal Reserve which I don't understand.Some do. For me it comes down to having respect for the Rule of Law. Our Constitution dictates that monetary control is a function of Congress, which is answerable to the People. They have shunted their responsibility to a private agency, and have made that agency answerable to no one.

tude dog;1402547 wrote: Ron Paul in particular is an isolationist, and to me that is just plain silly, at best.Not to mention incorrect, but it's a common misconception.

Accountable · Post by **Accountable** » Fri Aug 31, 2012 3:48 am

Scrat;1402554 wrote: How do I feel about the candidates? Simple, they're both equally worthless. Further comment about Romney or Obama is pointless as the president of the USA does not make the decisions.

As for the ruling elite of America I have nothing good to say of any of them.

Accountable · Post by **Accountable** » Fri Aug 31, 2012 3:53 am

YZGI;1402471 wrote: Every time I watch the republicans speeches they remind me of televangelists preachers. I am a registered republican but I am not this new right wing bible thumping republican. I have no one to vote for at the moment. I will more than likely vote independent even though it seems a waste to do so.
I don't think it's a waste at all, as long as you vote. Voting for the lesser of two evils still elects evil, and voting for either Republocrat tells them that you support them in whatever they're doing. Not voting at all says nothing, and no news is good news, so not voting is the same as voting for them.

Voting for another candidate says that you don't support either Republocrat. Hundreds of thousands of people doing so might wake them up that their monopoly is in danger. Millions of votes concentrated on another candidate will topple their regime.

Clodhopper · Post by **Clodhopper** » Fri Aug 31, 2012 3:58 am

Crikey. The more I see of your elections the more the hair on the back of my neck stands up. But I do have the impression that opinion in America is polarising.

I know I don't understand the system. That's just what it looks like from here. Checks and balances are great, but when an urge for reform is stifled then the pressure surely just builds...?

Clodhopper · Post by **Clodhopper** » Fri Aug 31, 2012 4:19 am

I should perhaps add that if you've ever watched Prime Minister's Questions I wouldn't blame you for cancelling NATO and withdrawing all nationals.

Accountable · Post by **Accountable** » Fri Aug 31, 2012 4:21 am

Wandrin;1402551 wrote: I'd be interested to see which candidates would line up from this quiz. See which presidential candidate you side with

Gary Johnson 91%

Mitt Romney 78%

Virgil Goode 72%

Virgil Goode?? :-2

Accountable · Post by **Accountable** » Fri Aug 31, 2012 4:24 am

Clodhopper;1402586 wrote: Crikey. The more I see of your elections the more the hair on the back of my neck stands up. But I do have the impression that opinion in America is polarising.

I know I don't understand the system. That's just what it looks like from here. Checks and balances are great, but when an urge for reform is stifled then the pressure surely just builds...?

Right. It's designed to stymie any but the most important changes. Legislation can only limit liberty, so we need to be careful with it.

Of course it seldom works as designed.

Clodhopper · Post by **Clodhopper** » Fri Aug 31, 2012 4:49 am

It seems that the pressure for change must be very great indeed to get both Congress and President pulling with rather than against eachother.

"Legislation can only limit liberty" trips off the tongue so smoothly it set my slogan alert off. Perhaps unfairly. :-3

But if that liberty is to abuse my fellow citizens then perhaps it should be limited? Complete liberty is anarchy, which is no liberty at all...

gmc · Post by **gmc** » Fri Aug 31, 2012 5:47 am

Jill Stein on domestic policy, foreign policy, environmental, social, science, and healthcare issues 89%

Rocky Anderson on domestic policy, foreign policy, social, environmental, and healthcare issues 82%

Gary Johnson on foreign policy, economic, social, and immigration issues 80%

Barack Obama on foreign policy, social, healthcare, science, environmental, and immigration issues 78%

Mitt Romney on economic and immigration issues 28%

American Voters on foreign policy, domestic policy, economic, science, environmental, social, immigration, and healthcare issues. 60%

Show all candidates

Who you side with by party...

94% Democratic

91% Green

73% Libertarian

28% Republican

Who are jill stein and rocky Anderson? I didn't think your green party was much of a force in American politics. There used to be an american socialist that posted on this forum, or so he said he was.

posted by accountable

We are a federal republic. Federal laws are supposed to be limited to interstate and international relations, despite the moves Washington makes and has made for 100 years to centralize power and control in DC. Intrastate and other issues are matters for the individual states to address.

I don't expect you to understand. Rail away.

Actually I do understand, But I thought that was all argued out in the civil war and then in the later civil rights movement that federal law could overrule state law on some issues, like - well civil rights, the right to vote and if religious groups can prevent access to contraception and abortion even for non believers. but I suppose the issue will never go away. I notice some of the states seem already to have managed to shut down most of the abortion clinics one way or another are already ending abortion Not being an american I'm not going to argue with you about it since the nuances seem beyond my ken.

posted by tude dog

What the heck you talking about?

My frustration is with babble like you just presented.

Seriously, I have no idea where you come up with that stuff. I listen to well reasoned liberal types, and appreciate a civil discussion. But what you just presented, uh, dang. What does one do with that, I have zero idea.

Mitt romney is on record as wishing to prevent access to contraception and deny women the choice when it comes to abortion primarily on religious grounds. I'm surprised you are unaware of that. Do you wish me to provide you with some links so you can see for yourself. Mind you I don't think as a non american I should be the one telling you what your presidential candidates are saying. I too appreciate civil discussion all you have to do is just ask me where I got that "stuff" from.

Snooz · Post by **Snooz** » Fri Aug 31, 2012 5:56 am

I should live in Scotland, my percentages matched up with GMC nearly identically.

Rocky Anderson was a radical Utah governor, if I remember correctly.

Snooz · Post by **Snooz** » Fri Aug 31, 2012 6:03 am

Sorry, Salt Lake City Mayor

Rocky Anderson - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Post by **LarsMac** » Fri Aug 31, 2012 6:29 am

Accountable;1402589 wrote: Right. It's designed to stymie any but the most important changes. Legislation can only limit liberty, so we need to be careful with it.

Of course it seldom works as designed.

Well said.

When I was a boy, a Conservative was one who, as Tude dog said was one who was about strict construction in interpreting the US Constitution.

Now days it seems the "Conservatives" are only that way when it comes to minding the liberty of corporations, but wish to limit personal liberty of the individual.

It is my opinion that the purpose of the government should be to guard the liberty of the individual from all threats, corporate, foreign, or domestic.

OF course, now it just seems to be a war between two evil empires.

IF the majority of Americans see things the same way several of us, here do, then there is hope.

They just need to be weaned from the idea that they must choose between the two party choices the media presents.

Of course, unless the other parties can gain a foothold in Congress, as well, the Libertarian, or Green Party President will just be a Lame Duck for four long years.

YZGI · Post by **YZGI** » Fri Aug 31, 2012 7:16 am

Accountable;1402585 wrote: I don't think it's a waste at all, as long as you vote. Voting for the lesser of two evils still elects evil, and voting for either Republocrat tells them that you support them in whatever they're doing. Not voting at all says nothing, and no news is good news, so not voting is the same as voting for them.

Voting for another candidate says that you don't support either Republocrat. Hundreds of thousands of people doing so might wake them up that their monopoly is in danger. Millions of votes concentrated on another candidate will topple their regime.
Oh, I'll vote.

I watched Romney last night give his "sermon" . I can't believe I used to argue with Liberal friends for the Republicans (conservatives). I used to think conservatives were small government, less taxes etc. etc. Now it seems they want to regulate morals and turn the US into a religious based nation. Isn't that what we're supposed to be fighting in Islamic countries? I'm not anti religion, I'm just anti religious legislation.

Wandrin · Post by **Wandrin** » Fri Aug 31, 2012 9:11 am

YZGI;1402619 wrote: Oh, I'll vote.

I watched Romney last night give his "sermon" . I can't believe I used to argue with Liberal friends for the Republicans (conservatives). I used to think conservatives were small government, less taxes etc. etc. Now it seems they want to regulate morals and turn the US into a religious based nation. Isn't that what we're supposed to be fighting in Islamic countries? I'm not anti religion, I'm just anti religious legislation.

Some of the political mailers that I've received were a bit scary. Things like "Can one be a Christian and not vote Republican" and "Democrats hate God and hate America" to the claptrap about Obama wanted to turn the country into an Islamic police state. I'm not sure that there are any traditional conservatives left in the Republican party and the Democratic party is a disorganized mess. I really don't want a bunch of Bible thumpers trying to pass a lot of new laws telling me who I have to hate in order to be good.

The nice thing about this questionnaire/poll is that it mentioned some candidates I hadn't heard of previously.

along-for-the-ride · Post by **along-for-the-ride** » Fri Aug 31, 2012 4:51 pm

I am a registered voter and I do vote.

The campaign process to me is a big , expensive joke. You know...."Tell 'em what they want to hear" and say it louder and more often than the other candidate. I'm not impressed.

Accountable · Post by **Accountable** » Fri Aug 31, 2012 5:27 pm

Clodhopper;1402591 wrote: It seems that the pressure for change must be very great indeed to get both Congress and President pulling with rather than against eachother. Ideally, yes.

Clodhopper;1402591 wrote: "Legislation can only limit liberty" trips off the tongue so smoothly it set my slogan alert off. Perhaps unfairly. :-3Thank you! Maybe I should copyright it.

But I'm sure somebody probably said it before me. Another original is "legislation is surrender".

Clodhopper;1402591 wrote: But if that liberty is to abuse my fellow citizens then perhaps it should be limited? Complete liberty is anarchy, which is no liberty at all...Liberty that abuses others is limited and should be, imo, but I'd lay odds that your opinion about where that line lies differs from mine.

Accountable · Post by **Accountable** » Fri Aug 31, 2012 5:37 pm

LarsMac;1402610 wrote: Well said.

When I was a boy, a Conservative was one who, as Tude dog said was one who was about strict construction in interpreting the US Constitution.

Now days it seems the "Conservatives" are only that way when it comes to minding the liberty of corporations, but wish to limit personal liberty of the individual.

It is my opinion that the purpose of the government should be to guard the liberty of the individual from all threats, corporate, foreign, or domestic.

OF course, now it just seems to be a war between two evil empires.

IF the majority of Americans see things the same way several of us, here do, then there is hope.

They just need to be weaned from the idea that they must choose between the two party choices the media presents.

Of course, unless the other parties can gain a foothold in Congress, as well, the Libertarian, or Green Party President will just be a Lame Duck for four long years.
Also well said. I think the key is to populate the lower levels and build from there. That doesn't mean we should support them at higher levels, but the way to get the sheep to start thinking out of the two-party box is to show them that there are many other people willing to do it, too.

gmc · Post by **gmc** » Sat Sep 01, 2012 1:17 am

I would have thought most Americans are pissed off with the way things have been going but it seems ordinary people have very little say in what happens. It's the same here, it's like being in the back seat of a car and you know they are goung to crash but you can't stop it happening. The referendum here in 2014 might be a chance to shake the apple tree a bit.

Accountable · Post by **Accountable** » Sat Sep 01, 2012 8:06 am

gmc;1402835 wrote: I would have thought most Americans are pissed off with the way things have been going but it seems ordinary people have very little say in what happens. It's the same here, it's like being in the back seat of a car and you know they are goung to crash but you can't stop it happening. The referendum here in 2014 might be a chance to shake the apple tree a bit.The part of the problem here that bugs me the most is the apathy. Any mention of thinking outside the box the Republocrats have built gets met with rolling eyes and dirisive jokes. Ron Paul cracked things a little, but the establishment have shown that they're eager to close ranks by not inviting him or Sarah Palin (showing their true attitude toward the repub Tea Party).

Post by **LarsMac** » Sat Sep 01, 2012 8:35 am

gmc;1402835 wrote: I would have thought most Americans are pissed off with the way things have been going but it seems ordinary people have very little say in what happens. It's the same here, it's like being in the back seat of a car and you know they are goung to crash but you can't stop it happening. The referendum here in 2014 might be a chance to shake the apple tree a bit.

Americans ARE pissed off, but the partycrats have done a good job of getting them to be angry at the other party. The right is blaming the current administration, while the left is blaming Bush.

So they now see the answer as putting in their favorite party person in the White House, while the the real hogs keep feeding at the trough.

Accountable · Post by **Accountable** » Sat Sep 01, 2012 11:32 am

LarsMac;1402854 wrote: Americans ARE pissed off, but the partycrats have done a good job of getting them to be angry at the other party. The right is blaming the current administration, while the left is blaming Bush.

So they now see the answer as putting in their favorite party person in the White House, while the the real hogs keep feeding at the trough.

Thus my sig.

Clodhopper · Post by **Clodhopper** » Sun Sep 02, 2012 3:20 am

Liberty that abuses others is limited and should be, imo, but I'd lay odds that your opinion about where that line lies differs from mine.

No takers here.

Quite a lot of principle in common, I'd suspect, but fair bit of difference in application on the ground, at least in part because our situations and history are linked but different.