I’m no Democrat, but goshdarn can he do a speech. Whew! I had to remind myself that I was Republican afterwards.
Considering his support for building that inane wall and possible military action in Iran, I have to remind myself he isn’t a republican, so I don’t think your allegiance is in danger, really.
He actually stated that he would go talk to the President of Iran without any preresquites. He has to say the military option is on the table. If he doesn’t and wins the primary election, not enough people from the center may vote for him in the general.
Quite honestly, seeing as how Mitt Romney and all my other good fellows haven’t mentioned really talking as much as slapping economic sanctions on Iran, I don’t think Obama is anywhere near being a Republican. I don’t know anything about the wall, I assume it’s overe the U.S.-Mexico border. As a Texan, or really, just an individual who knows something about the issue, it’s essentially a non-issue. The border is divided up between private and public property and it would be a logistical nightmare to build one. We’re better off with the border patrol and Minutemen doing their job correctly.
What’s wrong with liking the guy? Hell, maybe you’d like to vote for him. Look at all the liberal supporters of Ron Paul.
Not like there’s a huge difference between the mainstream candidates anyway.
Am I the only one who who misread the thread title as “Osama”?
Ann Coulter did too, but she did it on purpose.
Mullenkamp: It is a wall over the US Mexico border, and it is indeed a terrible, terrible idea. I live in Colorado, so I’m right with you on knowing what a shitty idea it is. It’s a primarily Republican idea (honestly, it is mostly our own Tancredo’s baby, sadly for Colorado, from what I recall) Obama’s pretty much voting to pander centre, like you said. Pandering just pisses me off. My rather sarcastic comments that he “may as well be a republican,” are mostly a joke on how little it really matters what party you’re in here, since there’s not much difference.
Mitt Romney made the same mistake, but he apologized.
…Yeah, it’s a Republican idea, but anyone who has a lick sense about it, Rep or Dem, should know how ineffective it is. Tancredo’s a one-issue guy, with a rather extreme view of immigration even for Republicans. Pandering’s just part of the game. If Obama’s going to pander on any issue to gain some trust from the center or some Republicans, Iran is a good choice; simply stating that the military option is on the table essentially means little unless something huge happens. You gain votes for potentially doing nothing and it makes him look stronger on defense, which is viewed as a big plus on this side of the aisle.
It’s so peculiar seeing “centre” spelled like that.
Better center than the extremes.
Speaking for myself, I think I’d prefer a “center”-type person over someone who’s interested in partisan polarization.
Ron Paul is the only Republican I would vote for over any of the likely democratic candidates in the coming election. I’ve never been a big fan of the Democrats but the Republicans have moved so far away from true conservative positions that the Democrats are the lesser of two evils right now.
As for illegal immigration, it’s a big problem with no easy solution. I don’t really expect any of the candidates to do anything other than try and dodge the issue. Maybe we’ll some (effective) action after the election is over.
That’s kind of funny to me. You don’t expect them to do anything about the issue until their elected already and you have to deal with the reprecussions of their view of the issue for the next four years.
As far as I’ve seen, most of them haven’t dodged the question. You don’t dodge a question as explosive as that. Heck, Tancredo’s made immigration all that his campaigns been about. Most of their opinions, of course, cow to the party line: Mitt Romney and Rudy Giuliani are against any semblance of amnesty and want to toughen the laws. Huckabee’s a bit more accepting; he’s willing to reach out to that community, but got some serious trouble from conservativ for it back when he was governor of Arkansas. McCain’s the only one who’s gone against the party line by supporting the Immigration reform of the summer and lost a bunch of political capital for it.
Democrats want amnesty or semblance of it.
There, see, they answer all the questions!
Oh, yes, politics is all about remembering your loyalties and not caring about what anyone else thinks. No matter how terrible the republicans become, stay with them because they are your party! Siding with Bush just to prevent the democrats from doing anything? Who cares, they are your party, vote for them anyway! And they are demonstrating their loyalty, who cares that they are loyal to a terrible president like Bush? All hail the great leader! Ignorance is strength! War is peace! Freedom is slavery! China has always been our ally, Iran has always been our enemy! The Republican party stamping on the face of humanity forever!
That pretty much sums up everything that’s going wrong with the American political system
Huh? When’s the last time you’ve seen a Republican who’s vying for the nomination being endorsed by Bush? His Administration is radioactive at this point to the American publice and both Bush and the Republicans know that at this point.
If anything, the American political system fosters more individualism than in other countries. I wouldn’t stick with the Republicans if I thought they were wrong for the country. Despite the fact that everyone thinks I’m a robot for someone reason, I wouldn’t vote for a Republican if I didn’t agree with their ideals. Not all Republicans are like Bush the same way not all Democrats are like Dennis Kucinich.
Yeah, I stand by my party; even when my party has messed up, I sense that they’ve implemented the right policies in incorrect ways. Bush had good ideas but he screwed up their implementation, that doesn’t mean I’m going to abandon my entire party. You don’t give up and turn Democrat just because your party screwed up, you reform the party from the inside out. You gain nothing by jumping ship whenever it suits you when you have a chance of changing things for the better instead.
I don’t understand why I’m always getting beat up here. If I declared myself a Democrat and announced that I usally voted Democrat because they reflected my ideals I wouldn’t get a lick of this egregious 1984 comparisons and such.
I just felt like ranting.
Ah, well, that explains everything.
I’m still critical of a two-party system simply because how many people appear brainwashed into allegiance to a party instead of allegiance to the country. One of our colour schemes for the message board is a good example of such petty behaviour.
Yeah, I definitely agree with you there, Cless. (I sometimes want to grab Michael Moore and Ann Coultier, and bang their heads together until they stop moving.) I’ve more or less accepted the fact that humans seem to insist on dividing the world between Us and Them, but I’m annoyed with the application thereof within your own country.
The problem is, the examples you use show the flaw in your logic about the two-party system; Micheal Moore and Ann Coulter are hardly representative of their respective parties.
I don’t think liberals are insane and I don’t think Democrats “hate America” like Coulter might. I’m sure not all Democrats agree would agree with Micheal Moore either. Really though, you probably already knew this so it’s a moot point.
The real issue is how I don’t see the two-party system as being supported by marching legions of people who vote blindly. First off, the party system is pretty malleable; Republicans can turn into Democrats and vice versa at the drop of a hat. Look at Joe Lieberman in Conneticut; he turned Independent and won.
Secondly, Party Identification is hardly as powerful as you might think. That’s because the American party system allows people to hold their own opinions - Lieberman supported Bush and the War on Terror when he was a Democrat, for example. Americans care less about the R or the D or even the I next to one’s name and more about the issues; that’s why we have debates between people of the same party - because we all know that they all have varying views, some or many which do no not cow to the party line.
What’s really interesting to note is that it’s not like the party system was entrenched into American politics from the beginning. As far as I can remember, there’s no mention of it in the Constitution - it only mentions of the majority and minority in the House and Senate. It naturally developed in America because it works for us. When the Republicans are in the majority, the Democrats scrutinize them and vice versa. It’s better than having a bunch parties with a slew of agendas in the political system. Then you have a mess of things instead of a concentration of power. Isn’t that how they work in the UK? They’ve got some parliamentary thing which allows all sorts of third parties to running amok. Instead of winner-take-all in the House and Senate, you can have third parties trying to achieve all kinds of changes at the same time? I don’t see how that’s productive at all.
How many swing states are there, historically, during any presidential election? About fifteen. That means about two-thirds of all states are fairly entrenched in their respective parties at any time, which doesn’t leave as many voting decisions based on rational and intelligent consideration of policies as I’d like to think.
Also, a winner-take-all policy does not seem to very true to the idea of representation by population. It’s more like representation by whoever can marginally win the election.