In the words of the great Lindsay Ellis, I hope Santorum becomes the Republican nominee. It'd be like Judge Frollo running for President.
http://2.bp.blogspot.com/-UhOFXfKG7hk/TvJN3bLA88I/AAAAAAAABSI/-n4ZIYAta28/s320/disney-judge-claude-frollo.jpgIt will make the election positively hilarious. Either way, I'm voting for Obama.
Thank you for getting my imagination runnign and editing some pics, includind the Frollo pic. May I quote the bold parts as my inspiration?
I think that's a bad comparison. I think Santorum is basically a good person, with a lot of ideals and beliefs that I can agree with.
However, he would in no way make a good president. He strikes me as having almost a middle-schooler's grasp of politics and world issues - overly simplistic and hopelessly biased in certain areas. He hasn't shown me anything that makes me confident he could convert those "good values" into anything resembling decent legislation.
So yeah, another vote for Obama over here.
Santorum is a right wing religious nutjob waging a war on women & science. He's a despicable human being,
I'm not an American, but since what happens in America affects most the world - all i can say is regardless of who they choose, they are screwed, because they're both such piss poor choices.
At least Obama's competent, and maybe like it was said, if he doesn't have a re-election hovering over him, he might be more willing to take risks.
The poll results are really funny, a third party what is that? Lets see which cat is going to bite you little mices next the black or the white one.
Oh hey it's that idiot communist guy. How are you doing idiot communist guy?
Funny you should stumble into a thread about elections when you basically swore them as the devil on the Arab Revoltuions thread, like how those "foolish Libyans" had nothing to look forward to or whatever that was.
–- Update From New Post Merge ---
Independent partys will never win any election in the western world. It's always the same, the winner is going to be conservative or liberal, whatever country you look at. The important reason for the existence of independant partys is that they put the two big political partys under pressure. Either the "big two" loose votes or they are forced to cooperate with a independant party to win. Both results in a process in which the "big two" include/assimilate ideas from the independant partys. And that is missing in the US.
That's not missing from the US at all, lol read your fucking inexorable history Karl if you think the shape of the parties as they are now is unchanged or if they're even the same two parties we've had since 1776.
I found this pretty weird: http://xkcd.com/980/huge/#x=-4900&y=-6850&z=5 Check around the millions area, last 3 elections were won by the party who expended the most.
What I don't know if it is that the candidate has more support (and more money) or the other way around, that because they have those ammounts of money they can reach more people.
3DS FC: 0516-7666-3837
SW-4128-8032-0729
What I don't know if it is that the candidate has more support (and more money) or the other way around, that because they have those ammounts of money they can reach more people.
Little bit of both. Chicken and egg sort of thing.
Obama raised unprecedented ammounts of money because he was the magic man that people put their hope into and the first black man to make it that far in a run. So he raised a lot of money because of the candidate, NOT because of the party. Hillary would have made less.
Sarah Palin raised crazy ammounts of money too. Because she was who she was. But it terrifies me that anyone could have really considered voting for THAT. (I liked McCain. He would have been a better choice than Bush in 2000. But Palin scared the piss out of me.)
Kerry… was boring and unappealing and couldn't win an election when half the country ALREADY hated the guy in the office, so of course he couldn't raise money.
Generally the more popular guy is going to get more support, which equates to more money and votes in the end.
Its the same reason election results can usually be guessed more or less weeks in advance, barring incredibly close and tight races. Sometimes the winner is obvious right after the presidential debate where one guy destroys the other, and the actual voting is just a formality after that.
I don't THINK Santorum is anything like Frollo, but man…he says things that make me question what century he's from.
Thank you for getting my imagination runnign and editing some pics, includind the Frollo pic. May I quote the bold parts as my inspiration?
http://i1210.photobucket.com/albums/cc415/Katzztar/Santorum-Smile1-1.jpg
I approve in every way.
Santorum is literally Kenneth from 30 Rock.
@Monkey:
Oh hey it's that idiot communist guy. How are you doing idiot communist guy?
Funny you should stumble into a thread about elections when you basically swore them as the devil on the Arab Revoltuions thread, like how those "foolish Libyans" had nothing to look forward to or whatever that was.
Hey it's our little polemicist Zephos, nice to see you.
I'm doing fine my King, hope you too?
You probably should look how fine things are going in "Lybia", Afghanistan or Iraq after the establishment of our western democracy.
But thats not the topic here.
That's not missing from the US at all, lol read your fucking inexorable history Karl if you think the shape of the parties as they are now is unchanged or if they're even the same two parties we've had since 1776.
You missed my point. Name a few delegates in the US senat or the House of Representatives who doesn't belong to the Democrats or Republicans?
When was the last time a independant party positioned a delegate in one of the houses?
You're studying political science you know the concept i'm talking about, right?
Here are a few example from Germany:
The greens founded in 1980, managed to put ecological thinking into the other german partys.
The left never played a role in the formation of the government, since years they've the issue minimum wages in their political program.
During the last years other partys copied this issue, the conservatives under Angela Merkel even established minimum wages in some working fields.
The pirates established a debate about internet rights and other modern issues and the other Partys take up these topics.
The little partys put the big ones under pressure and that is missing in the US.
Naruto is so cool it has 600 billion naked Zetsus with armadillo penises dancing under a rainbow.
Hey it's our little polemicist Zephos, nice to see you.
I'm doing fine my King, hope you too?
You probably should look how fine things are going in "Lybia", Afghanistan or Iraq after the establishment of our western democracy.
But thats not the topic here.
Afghanistan and Iraq are nothing like Libya lol.
And if you're surprised that Libya is having hard time that only makes you naive. But we already knew that about you.
You're man who likes to think of the world in simple almost dogmatic terms, search for easy romantic answers, and doesn't want to deal in nuance.
No wonder your attracted to the religion of Communism. Look forward to the midlife crisis where you have a surprisingly casual flip into hardcore Christianity. But there will be nothing surprising about that.
You missed my point. Name a few delegates in the US senat or the House of Representatives who doesn't belong to the Democrats or Republicans? When was the last time a independant party positioned a delegate in one of the houses?
Joe Liebermann, Bernie Sanders.
But regardless here's the point of more ignorance. That you think merely calling oneself under either of those banners means one suddenly becomes an identical ideological clone with all the other people under it. Nothing could be farther from the truth.
The parties mean less than you know. You don't have a point here.
Frankly I don't know why you think you know in the first place. Is it that sort of arrogance shown by some Europeans where they assume America is very simple and that they have it figured out? No you don't lol. We're a huge country, if you don't figure what that can and does mean for variety and complexity when it comes to politics you need to get humble fast.
You're studying political science you know the concept i'm talking about, right?
Any American who pays half attention at our own history will be familiar with this.
The greens founded in 1980, managed to put ecological thinking into the other german partys.
The left never played a role in the formation of the government, since years they've the issue minimum wages in their political program.
During the last years other partys copied this issue, the conservatives under Angela Merkel even established minimum wages in some working fields.
The pirates established a debate about internet rights and other modern issues and the other Partys take up these topics.The little partys put the big ones under pressure and that is missing in the US.
Multi-party democracies have never shown any difference to me in either effectiveness or hell even just being different. The parties here are exactly the same except they just happened to call themselves similar things.
Any person who has actually paid attention to recent American politics would very obviously see that this thing called the Republican Party is actually like two or three different factions, that do the same exact shit they would if they called themselves different things. They argue, pressure eachother, bring new issues to the table, make new flags around them.
Hell yes we have smaller factions pressuring larger ones. The Tea Party faction has been pressuring the crap out of the Moderate Republicans for several years now.
There's the religious republicans, and the military republicans, and the tax cut republicans. Its basically three different parties under one umbrella, they don't all totally overlap or agree on everything.
The only reason they're unified is so they can have the shared votes.
If it was as simple as a party being a one topic issue, then the country wouldn't be split 50/50 nearly as much as it is. Hell, look at the poll above. I realize this is a board of artists and creative freedom types, but even in an anonymous poll, we have 27 Democrat and 1 republican. Wouldn't it be split more if it was just an either/or thing, or if either side had only one issue they cared about?
I mean. There's gay republicans. the party is incredibly anti-gay… but there's still gay republicans... because the OTHER 95% of the issues matter to them, and they aren't defined by just one thing.
There's actually quite a few local independent politicians up where I'm from. The current governor of Rhode Island isn't party affiliated for instance.
@Monkey:
Afghanistan and Iraq are nothing like Libya lol.
"polimic etc.."
You read this "Libya", right. I'm looking forward to the results in Libya it's going to be the same as in Iraq and Afghanistan.
Joe Liebermann, Bernie Sanders.
Wow atleast two.
But regardless here's the point of more ignorance. That you think merely calling oneself under either of those banners means one suddenly becomes an identical ideological clone with all the other people under it. Nothing could be farther from the truth.
The parties mean less than you know. You don't have a point here.
Frankly I don't know why you think you know in the first place. Is it that sort of arrogance shown by some Europeans where they assume America is very simple and that they have it figured out? No you don't lol. We're a huge country, if you don't figure what that can and does mean for variety and complexity when it comes to politics you need to get humble fast.
Any American who pays half attention at our own history will be familiar with this.
Multi-party democracies have never shown any difference to me in either effectiveness or hell even just being different. The parties here are exactly the same except they just happened to call themselves similar things.
Any person who has actually paid attention to recent American politics would very obviously see that this thing called the Republican Party is actually like two or three different factions, that do the same exact shit they would if they called themselves different things. They argue, pressure eachother, bring new issues to the table, make new flags around them.
Hell yes we have smaller factions pressuring larger ones. The Tea Party faction has been pressuring the crap out of the Moderate Republicans for several years now.
There are a few factions in both political camps, thats a very well known fact, i am not stupid. And somehow you're right there isn't really a big differnce in multi-party democracies towards the US system, the winner in elections is either a liberal or a conservative. The only real difference is that the voter has more options to give his own political opinion more power, with more partys the formation of a government is harder for the politicians and imo it's more representative than the vote between two partys.
Naruto is so cool it has 600 billion naked Zetsus with armadillo penises dancing under a rainbow.
If I were able to vote, I'd probably go with Obama. Only because I don't hate everything he's doing and I think he's a bit over-criticized. If given the chance, I believe he could do good things.
But, since the election is one month before I turn 18, I shall be unable to vote. Oh well.
You read this "Libya", right. I'm looking forward to the results in Libya it's going to be the same as in Iraq and Afghanistan.
Do you think Rome was built in a day? Do you think Western Europe became a stable democractic stronghold overnight? Do you think there wasn't instability? Mass emigration? Economic crap? Dead dictators? War? Civil War? International involvement? Years of extremely hard and scary work? Setbacks? Do you even think it's all done?
I would think I wouldn't have to tell a German this of all nationalities, but you seem to have little to no appreciation of what your own country's been through, considering you would probably have been crying when the wall came down had you been there.
Libya is not like those two, it's not a war placed on it suddenly by the outside like Iraq. Nor is it a place that has barely been a nation in any sense rather than a mountain range and it's extremties that have changed hands through warlords and empires for millenia.
It's a small, barely populated considerably culturally homogenous nation that rose up and fought it's OWN war by it's own choice. If you mock Libya's hard road you are mocking Libya, not MY country. So think about that first.
Besides what kind of communist thinks historical development toward a thing is an easy and clean road. Mao would have a few words to say to you comrade!
Wow atleast two.
Thanks for ignoring my actual point!
There are a few factions in both political camps, thats a very well known fact, i am not stupid.
Yes, you knew this thing that entirely undermines the argument you made previously. I believe this.
And somehow you're right there isn't really a big differnce in multi-party democracies towards the US system, the winner in elections is either a liberal or a conservative. The only real difference is that the voter has more options to give his own political opinion more power,
So do Americans lol. How do we not have this same exact power. Your so fixated on parties, as if that somehow matters more than the individual you're voting for. It really really doesn't.
with more partys the formation of a government is harder for the politicians
And what do you mean by harder for the politicians? To do what? Get stuff done? Because this sounds exactly like the US right now.
and imo it's more representative than the vote between two partys.
There ARE third candidates in the US. Again you're operating off some myth where it's not allowed. If such a candidate stood up nothing would stop him from being voted for. However mostly this sort of thing is done through the primary process. If you want to ask Ron Paul why he's running as a Republican in the election and not a Libertarian party be my guest.
@Monkey:
Do you think Rome was built in a day? Do you think Western Europe became a stable democractic stronghold overnight? Do you think there wasn't instability? Mass emigration? Economic crap? Dead dictators? War? Civil War? International involvement? Years of extremely hard and scary work? Setbacks? Do you even think it's all done?
I would think I wouldn't have to tell a German this of all nationalities, but you seem to have little to no appreciation of what your own country's been through, considering you would probably have been crying when the wall came down had you been there.
Libya is not like those two, it's not a war placed on it suddenly by the outside like Iraq. Nor is it a place that has barely been a nation in any sense rather than a mountain range and it's extremties that have changed hands through warlords and empires for millenia.
It's a small, barely populated considerably culturally homogenous nation that rose up and fought it's OWN war by it's own choice. If you mock Libya's hard road you are mocking Libya, not MY country. So think about that first.
Besides what kind of communist thinks historical development toward a thing is an easy and clean road. Mao would have a few words to say to you comrade!
First, don't call me a communist, at best call be a socialist democrat. Second, you don't have to educate me about german history, you know nothing about the turning time. Third, you can't compare the establishment of european democracy towards the building of democracy in the arabic countries.
And last,
Lybia is in some way the same as Iraq and Afghanistan when you talk about building a democracy. The western world freed these countries from dictatorship and Europe/USA are responsible to ensure a stable political system.
Thanks for ignoring my actual point!
That's what you are doing all the time!
Yes, you knew this thing that entirely undermines the argument you made previously. I believe this.
So do Americans lol. How do we not have this same exact power. Your so fixated on parties, as if that somehow matters more than the individual you're voting for. It really really doesn't.
And what do you mean by harder for the politicians? To do what? Get stuff done? Because this sounds exactly like the US right now.
There ARE third candidates in the US. Again you're operating off some myth where it's not allowed. If such a candidate stood up nothing would stop him from being voted for. However mostly this sort of thing is done through the primary process. If you want to ask Ron Paul why he's running as a Republican in the election and not a Libertarian party be my guest.
Before we go deeper into this discussion, let us stop. There is a lot of differences we're talking about. The whole discussion is meaningless, since we're talking about two different voting systems. In the USA the President is voted directly and undemocratic, i'm talking about indirect voting through partys, which then vote for the countryleader.
Naruto is so cool it has 600 billion naked Zetsus with armadillo penises dancing under a rainbow.
First, don't call me a communist, at best call be a socialist democrat.
Some democrat you were on the other thread lol. And what kind of socialist reads Lenin in a non educational environment lol.
Second, you don't have to educate me about german history, you know nothing about the turning time.
I have a feeling I may know more than you.
Third, you can't compare the establishment of european democracy towards the building of democracy in the arabic countries.
Oh hold on what was that we just heard?
"you know nothing about the turning time."
Exactly, you don't know nothing about the turning of time lol.
This is some seriously historical bullshit on your part. What is it bud? Is it some nonsense pseudo-history where you surgically remove the Arab world from Europe through some confused rant about imperialism? Turning it into some condescending sub-category where everywhere else is somehow a different species from Europe? Is that it?
Oh and please say you weren't calling Afghanistan an Arab country in that.
And last,
Lybia is in some way the same as Iraq and Afghanistan when you talk about building a democracy.
Oh? Enlightenment.
The western world freed these countries from dictatorship
nah nah
Iraq, yes.
Afghanistan, we sided with one side in an ongoing civil war.
Libya, we aided from above and afar an internal conflict without actually doing the dirty work ourselves. This was their victory and deaths.
and Europe/USA are responsible to ensure a stable political system.
This is impossible in Afghanistan, talk about naive. It wasn't even stable before we came in!
As for Iraq we did as much as possible, we were asked to leave. Would you have stayed anyway? Afghanistan is trending this direction as well.
As for Libya I support (as does the Obama white house) essentially a Marshall Planning of Libya (as well as Tunisia, and with time maybe Egypt since it's hardly more than a junta at the moment). Our government is trying to do what it can in Libya, we don't have much room at the moment, and again, we did not cause the Libya conflict.
That's what you are doing all the time!
Nyope.
Before we go deeper into this discussion, let us stop. There is a lot of differences we're talking about. The whole discussion is meaningless, since we're talking about two different voting systems. In the USA the President is voted directly and undemocratic, i'm talking about indirect voting through partys, which then vote for the countryleader.
Wait wait wait, your Chancellor being voted on through others is fine, but the electoral college isn't? I'm not even defending the electoral college but we both rely on this. Electors don't even have their own choice, it's a winner take all basis for winning a state, or in the case of a few they win them based on districts.
Zephos, just…... if he wont listen don't burn too much blood on the situation.
@RobbyBevard:
There's the religious republicans, and the military republicans, and the tax cut republicans. Its basically three different parties under one umbrella, they don't all totally overlap or agree on everything.
The only reason they're unified is so they can have the shared votes.
If it was as simple as a party being a one topic issue, then the country wouldn't be split 50/50 nearly as much as it is. Hell, look at the poll above. I realize this is a board of artists and creative freedom types, but even in an anonymous poll, we have 27 Democrat and 1 republican. Wouldn't it be split more if it was just an either/or thing, or if either side had only one issue they cared about?
I mean. There's gay republicans. the party is incredibly anti-gay… but there's still gay republicans... because the OTHER 95% of the issues matter to them, and they aren't defined by just one thing.
But aren't there Blue Dog Democrats, which are the more conservative part of the Democrat party (which the regular Democrats have been trying to unseat for years).
Another question is what category of republican does Ron Paul fall under. While I mention that none of the candidates really wowed me with their ideas, I forgot to mention that to me Ron Paul would be a good candidate. Unfortunately, several of the ideologies he supports (gay rights, legalizing marijuana, staying out of potential wars, etc.) are the type of policies that the Republican party are against.
Blue Dog Democrats I'm pretty sure are just Democrats from very conservative states, so that their politics are basically conservative by cultural geography.
Vice versa for RINOs. Like the recently departed and badly missed Olympia Snowe.
(I don't know where you got the idea that democrats are trying to unseat probably the only democrats that would be winning in places where those types come from, which they wouldn't have power over mostly, or would have a worse alternative)
They're a perfect illustration of why the name of the party says little about where a politician actually stands.
I remember republicans crowing with joy when Ted Kennedy's old senate seat went to a republican, Scott Brown.
Soon though they realized he was a republican from Mass, which meant he was hardly conservative in a national sense.
@Monkey:
Blue Dog Democrats I'm pretty sure are just Democrats from very conservative states, so that their politics are basically conservative by cultural geography.
Vice versa for RINOs. Like the recently departed and badly missed Olympia Snowe.
(I don't know where you got the idea that democrats are trying to unseat probably the only democrats that would be winning in places where those types come from, which they wouldn't have power over mostly, or would have a worse alternative)They're a perfect illustration of why the name of the party says little about where a politician actually stands.
I remember republicans crowing with joy when Ted Kennedy's old senate seat went to a republican, Scott Brown.
Soon though they realized he was a republican from Mass, which meant he was hardly conservative in a national sense.
I guess I was referring to those in the far left who view the BD as "Democrats in name only", basically the ones who supported several of the Bush policies such as the warrantless wiretapping and so forth.
I'm getting really tired of politics in this country. The whole thing.
It's gotten so bad that I recently had a conservative yell and scream at me about how I'm what's killing America and I'm just a sheep who blindly follows the fold, when all I said was that calling Obama a "Socialist" was just a buzz word piece of rhetoric and that even if he were, nobody would ever be able to turn this county Socialist. Take note, I never once said anything positive about Obama, just that he's not an actuall, full-on socialist. For all this guy knew, I could have hated every single one of Obama's policies, but I just don't buy into the "socialist" rhetoric. That's not my view, but he didn't know that. However, because I didn't fully agree that Obama is Karl Marx reincarnated, I was an actual enemy and am "What is killing America".
That's what the problem with America is. We can't just be a people who disagree about certain political topics, who debate those topics to come to fair and just compromises for everyone. It's literally a "With Us or Against Us" war where nobody can agree. Where the party not in charge has to be "The Party of No" and oppose every Idea the other has simply because it's the other who had it.
t's become petty, childish, and makes me feel ashamed to be an American.
Switch Friend Code: SW-1795-2519-1884 • Click Here to check out my Twitch Channel
I guess I was referring to those in the far left who view the BD as "Democrats in name only", basically the ones who supported several of the Bush policies such as the warrantless wiretapping and so forth.
I've seen no real move of this kind from the democrats (do we even have a far left in any elected positions aside from ol' Bernie and Dennis?).
The Tea Party has been doing this to what they consider RINO's however, sadly their idea of RINO's seems to be what used to be a normal republican.
I don't like any of them. As a grown woman, I find the current anti-woman's rights stance very offensive … and that is the only way to describe the laws goin into effect in states like Texas, forcing a woman to have a sonogram before an abortion no matter what the situation is. They act as if the only woman getting an abortion is a youth whose contraception failed when many more reasons exist, such as a fatal deformation or the woman was raped.
I hope Obama wins,
If for nothing else keep these anti-women's righter out the office.
I saw this in a magazine and I thought of your post:
http://nymag.com/news/frank-rich/gop-women-problem-2012-4/
It's pretty long,though.
Zephos would you please turn your brain on and start thinking.
@Monkey:
I have a feeling I may know more than you.
Would you please name the relationship between West Germany and the GDR with one subject before and after the fall of the wall.
This is some seriously historical bullshit on your part. What is it bud? Is it some nonsense pseudo-history where you surgically remove the Arab world from Europe through some confused rant about imperialism? Turning it into some condescending sub-category where everywhere else is somehow a different species from Europe? Is that it?
I repeat myself, you can't really compare the establishment of democracy in europe and in the muslim nations.
Why, because european countries never had a lot of powerful countries with established democracies behind them like the muslim nations today.
nah nah
Iraq, yes.
Afghanistan, we sided with one side in an ongoing civil war.
Libya, we aided from above and afar an internal conflict without actually doing the dirty work ourselves. This was their victory and deaths.This is impossible in Afghanistan, talk about naive. It wasn't even stable before we came in!
As for Iraq we did as much as possible, we were asked to leave. Would you have stayed anyway? Afghanistan is trending this direction as well.
As for Libya I support (as does the Obama white house) essentially a Marshall Planning of Libya (as well as Tunisia, and with time maybe Egypt since it's hardly more than a junta at the moment). Our government is trying to do what it can in Libya, we don't have much room at the moment, and again, we did not cause the Libya conflict.
Instead of nitpicking about the differences try to find the similarities between these three nations.
The USA and Nato intervened with military power and eradicated the political powers back then. And now they've the duty to ensure a stable political system. That's all i wanted to say.
And if you still insist to talk about this topic, we should change the issue to US foreign policy that would be more ontopic.
Wait wait wait, your Chancellor being voted on through others is fine, but the electoral college isn't? I'm not even defending the electoral college but we both rely on this. Electors don't even have their own choice, it's a winner take all basis for winning a state, or in the case of a few they win them based on districts.
And again, read the first sentence of this post.
In this thread the topic is the presidential election and i interposed, that in the US a partisan variety for a more represantative formation of a government is missing. Regardless how many differnet factions in both partys exsist in the end either Obama or a republican is going to be President. The discussion would be meaningfull if we would be talking about congressional election. So my bad
Naruto is so cool it has 600 billion naked Zetsus with armadillo penises dancing under a rainbow.
Zephos would you please turn your brain on and start thinking.
You're probably the most painfully amateur self styled expert on this board lol, who are you to call anyone out on not thinking.
Would you please name the relationship between West Germany and the GDR with one subject before and after the fall of the wall.
Relations to the Nazi past is an interesting one. How about that.
You don't really think I'm intimidated by you on history do you Mr. "EUROPE IS NOTHING LIKE THE ARAB WORLD REVOLUTION WISE"
I repeat myself, you can't really compare the establishment of democracy in europe and in the muslim nations.
Of course you can loll, I've even written term papers on that shit.
Oh and do you enjoy moving goalposts? What happened to Arab World? Are you just quietly shuffling your apparent thoughts of Afghanistan being Arab under the rug? Don't think I'll you live that one down lol.
And which muslim nations? Former Soviet? Arab? Persiosphere? South Asian? Sub-Saharan? Southeast Asian? Southeast European? They ain't similar holmes, some of them couldn't be more different. Heck you could even divide the Arab world even further.
Why, because european countries never had a lot of powerful countries with established democracies behind them like the muslim nations today.
lol, yes they did. Maybe not in 1848, but most of Europe did have a contrast with other parts of Europe (and the US). Eastern Europe as a whole (and STILL for that matter in some of those places). Greece struggled with democracy and shit, and received support from the west just like Libya did. The entire Iberian peninsula until the 70's. The Fascist nations during WW2 versus the Allied Europe (your country, Italy mainly).
And that's just one category of comparison!
Instead of nitpicking about the differences try to find the similarities between these three nations.
lol at you arbitrarily deciding the differences don't matter.
No, you can't do that. They matter a helluva lot more than the similarties. Sorry if that makes you bad argument not work, but that's why it's bad.
The USA and Nato intervened with military power and eradicated the political powers back then.
NATO was not involved with Iraq. How does a German think this is true? Your country (wisely) stayed away.
Also this is such a banal comparison, it doesn't say anything. See that's the issue fool. If you bring up a similarity (which this barely is to Afghanistan as soon as even the slightest detail is added) and it doesn't actually add any food for thought…what was the point??
Are you just saying it to say it? Are you that backed into a corner already?
And now they've the duty to ensure a stable political system. That's all i wanted to say.
We have no duty. That's not even up to us.
No seriously. You think we have a duty to do this.
Guess what Mr. Marxist Anti-Imperialist or whatever you style yourself. That would involve overthrowing, possibly endlessly, the leaders of Iraq and Afghanistan.
Both men have shown themselves to be dubious corrupt kleptocrats. And there is absolutely nothing we can do about that. We can't get better people, because in these sorts of scenarios men like this come to power. And the alternative would be pulling a coup against them.
The people of these countries would love none of that. Iraq wanted us out, Afghanistan wants us gone.
And Libya we never put boots on the gorund to begin with, no occupation, only contribution. Contribution after request for that matter.
I think we should help Libya out financially but not because of your idea that we're cleaning up a mess we made, but for the same reason we bailed out West Germany. Because a stable country is good for the world at large. An unstable one is not.
And if you still insist to talk about this topic, we should change the issue to US foreign policy that would be more ontopic.
This IS US foreign policy lol. In fact we're discussing some things involving the current race, incumbent, and candidates! Duh!
In this thread the topic is the presidential election and i interposed, that in the US a partisan variety for a more represantative formation of a government is missing.
No, you're simply fixated on the fact that our parties don't bisect themselves with more obvious names, colors, and shit. You're only paying attention to the surface. Here let me indulge you with a little imagination to make our politics more pretty for you.
Right now the Republican electorate is choosing between four different parties.
The Center Right Party, Mitt Romney. Their color is red.
The Christian Values Alliance, Rick Santorum. Their color is white.
The Southern Good Ol' Boy Alliance, Newt Gingrich. Their color is brown.
And the Libertarian Love Party, Ron Paul. Their color is yellow.
Just pretend this is there and all your problems with go away!
Regardless how many differnet factions in both partys exsist in the end either Obama or a republican is going to be President.
No either, Obama (incumbent so no votes among the left wing factions), a Center Right Party candidate, a Christian Values Alliance candidate, a Southern Good Ol' Boy candidate, and a Libertarian Love candidate will win!
Also the people who literally will be running in different parties as always, the (actual) Libertarian Party, Constitution Party, Green Party (yes we have one too), Reform Party and whoever the hell else.
@Baou:
I saw this in a magazine and I thought of your post:
http://nymag.com/news/frank-rich/gop-women-problem-2012-4/
It's pretty long,though.
Thanks, I'm off to read it… will say more afterwards
Zephos. Jacko. You guys are having a debate. Thats fine and great.
But personal insults and negative tone are starting to slip into those walls of text.
Like I said at the start of the thread, I'm going low tolerance on that where politics or religion are involved, hotbeds that they are.
Carry on. Without the name calling.
@Monkey:
Right now the Republican electorate is choosing between four different parties.
The Center Right Party, Mitt Romney. Their color is red.
The Christian Values Alliance, Rick Santorum. Their color is white.
The Southern Good Ol' Boy Alliance, Newt Gingrich. Their color is brown.
And the Libertarian Love Party, Ron Paul. Their color is yellow.
They've also done away with the old GOP elephant and replaced it with more modern and fitting symbols. Respectively:
1. A gold-plated Etch-N-Sketch.
2. The Black Knight From Monty Python and the Holy Grail after he met Arthur.
3. The General Lee jumping a ravine.
4. A grizzled old prospector doing the "GOLD! IT'S GOLD, I TELLS YA!" dance.
Anyway, on a serious note, stuff like the following is why Romney will lose.
Romney said he has some connections to Wisconsin.
“One of most humorous I think relates to my father. You may remember my father, George Romney, was president of an automobile company called American Motors … They had a factory in Michigan, and they had a factory in Kenosha, Wisconsin, and another one in Milwaukee, Wisconsin,” said Romney. “And as the president of the company he decided to close the factory in Michigan and move all the production to Wisconsin. Now later he decided to run for governor of Michigan and so you can imagine that having closed the factory and moved all the production to Wisconsin was a very sensitive issue to him, for his campaign.”
Romney said he recalled a parade in which the school band marching with his father’s campaign only knew the Wisconsin fight song, not the Michigan song.
“So every time they would start playing ‘On Wisconsin, on Wisconsin,’ my dad’s political people would jump up and down and try to get them to stop, because they didn’t want people in Michigan to be reminded that my dad had moved production to Wisconsin,” said Romney, laughing.
Couple of points:
The GOP candidates, while appearing really weak individually in the primaries, will have the support of the whole machinery behind them once one is picked. The hardcore Evangelical Christian voters, who Romney is finding so hard to win over, will definitely vote Romney over Obama. For them, it's choosing the least of all evils. Between the Catholic and the Mormon, they pick the Catholic (which would be unthinkable a few years ago). Between a Mormon and a 'Muslim', they'll pick the Mormon. Begrudgingly, but they will. Romney is struggling hard to portray himself as a conservative right now, because he needs to pull some of the conservative vote against guys like Gingrich and Santorum. But in the general election, he'll win the conservative vote by default because he'd be up against a more liberal candidate.
As the house elections showed a couple of years ago, the party has momentum behind it. For all Obama's hope and change message, he's been a thoroughly disappointing president. The economy's improving, but that's mostly due to inertia than anything else. None of the bold domestic or foreign policy moves that were expected have been forthcoming. His healthcare plan is a disaster. Having the house armtwist him at every opportunity hasn't helped admittedly.
Ron Paul is a very enigmantic candidate. While most of his message is appealing, his brand of unchecked capitalism is very dangerous.
http://coelasquid.tumblr.com/post/20160506121/chompass-alpha-centauri-in-this-video-at I'll just leave this here:
65s"In this video, at 34:25, Rick Santorum called Barack Obama the N world."
But because this is the internet, I'm sure folks are going to stumble over themselves trying to pretend he was going to say something else.
God help me.
He was clearly going for nagger.
I guess this nets him the Pat Buchanan demographic.
@Cyan:
He was clearly going for nagger.
In a day and time when speeches are so thoroughly scrutinized for any potential misstep, it's hard to imagine how somebody could be so stupid as to use something that could be so easily misconstrued.
In a day and time when speeches are so thoroughly scrutinized for any potential misstep, it's hard to imagine how somebody could be so stupid as to use something that could be so easily misconstrued.
@Cyan:
He was clearly going for nagger.[/sarcasm]
Fixed that for you.
Santorum is a doofus. Unfortunately, he believes in almost all the backward, bigoted shit he spouts, unlike seasoned politicos like Romney, Gingrich and Mr. Super Prez. That makes him a very dangerous doofus. His one-state campaign in Iowa was probably the most intelligent thing his entire campaign has ever done. Although it's never going to happen, I want to see him win the presidency, just for the lulz.
Yes. Santorum as president.
Hilarious.
Looking at this from Europe even the tiniest possibility of President Santorum is scary as hell. But I'm sure it's a lot scarier for the sane population of the US.
There's just one thought bugging me. How did romney get such a huge lead given his flaws in the initial stage?
There's just one thought bugging me. How did romney get such a huge lead given his flaws in the initial stage?
Because everyone else sucks so hard.
How do you people let someone like Santorum possibly have to do anything with your presidential race
http://30.media.tumblr.com/tumblr_m1px2zhocI1qbrjx2o1_400.gif
How do you people let someone like Santorum possibly have to do anything with your presidential race
Little countries/little populations (that goes for you Canada!) wouldn't understand how things like this work.
There's just one thought bugging me. How did romney get such a huge lead given his flaws in the initial stage?
He has roughly a gojillion dollars to work with thanks to his billionaire cronies, which gives him a massive cash advantage when it comes to advertising. Sure, that's not everything since he's not really managed any impressive victories over the others in actual Republican states despite outspending them by huge margins, but it's still important. The primary reason the Not-Romney candidates have either flamed out (Bachman, Perry, Cain) or are actively undermining each other; Ron Paul has acted as a Romney surrogate attack dog at times while Newt and Santorum are competing for the same votes for the most part. If one of those two had dropped out early on, then this would have been an incredibly different race.
Media framing also plays a big part; Romney went in with an aura of inevitability from the start and had that not existed, the Iowa results would have been more closely followed and Santorum winning there might have helped him out in the early states won by Gringrich. As is, Romney has name recognition, loads of cash, and Republicans usually favor the runnerup from the previous primary.
Ron Paul 2012
Seriously though, none of the Republican candidates, from what I've read about them, seem sane enough to hold the office. Ron Paul is probably closest. Obama hasn't done a particularly good job in office either but I will probably end up voting for him while my parents label me a liberal.
In all honesty, I'd prefer Obama staying President instead of getting Mitt. I can't stand Mitt (and no, it's not because he's a Mormon; well…maybe). In fact, I'm not a fan of any of the Republican lineup. (I'm not affiliated with any political party, FYI).
Seriously though, none of the Republican candidates, from what I've read about them, seem sane enough to hold the office. Ron Paul is probably closest.
No. Just no.
Tossing out his history of association with racists, anti-Semites, misogynists, and homophobic organizations, there's still the little matter of the fact that Paul's policies would basically revert the Federal Government to its Articles of Confederation days, devastate the middle class, eliminate the safety net, and also open the doors for theocratic governments on the now all-powerful state level. Romney might have the charisma of a wet paper towel, but he doesn't have a tenth of the emotional baggage that Ron Paul does.
Well then it seems I'm voting Democrat then :ninja: .
I'm not the largest fan of Obama, but I definitely prefer the man over any of the Republican candidates. Mostly because of my stances on religion and government and LGBT rights.
Hopefully next time around we'll have better candidates, but that is something I'd have to see to believe.
No. Just no.
Tossing out his history of association with racists, anti-Semites, misogynists, and homophobic organizations, there's still the little matter of the fact that Paul's policies would basically revert the Federal Government to its Articles of Confederation days, devastate the middle class, eliminate the safety net, and also open the doors for theocratic governments on the now all-powerful state level. Romney might have the charisma of a wet paper towel, but he doesn't have a tenth of the emotional baggage that Ron Paul does.
Not withstanding the fact that his brand of unchecked capitalism is just the opposite of what the American economy needs. It is indeed sad that Ron Paul looks the sanest among them.
It is also sad that Obama would win the election by default. Based on his record, he does not deserve another term, but he'll win simply because he has a better political brain than any of these idiots. Also, he doesn't make an ass of himself every time he speaks. A candidate like George W. would have walked this election simply because he has a much more forceful personality than Romney.
