The Politics Thread

[Prufrock]

Looks like Adele is warming up...

Romster needs to pretty much win everything possible left on the table.

[Prufrock]

Game over. Four more years of Obama.

[CrazyHorse]

Aye.
I was treated to his full half hour God Bless America victory acceptance speech this morning courtesy of five live. I nearly had to pull the car over and throw up it was so nauseating. I genuinely expected Morgan Freeman to do a voice over at the end and it was so Hollywood stereotypical.

[Hoboh]

Stand by for action now, no re-election for Ob to worry about, back to your tunnels n caves terry n co, the end is nigh!

[Lost Leopard Spot]

Right, we know who to blame but my question, once I realized there are regional differences, has not been answered. If you need something not given in your region, can you get it in another region where it is offered. Yes or No.

sometimes yes - sometimes no.

And sometimes it is both No and Yes
There is an apocryphal story (which I know is based on truth) about a patient who was denied a certain drug which could have helped in controlling a brain tumour, who later was flown out at the expense of the local health authority to have an operation in the US on the tumour which had grown.

[Lost Leopard Spot]

Stand by for action now, no re-election for Ob to worry about, back to your tunnels n caves terry n co, the end is nigh!

??????????????? ???????????????

[Verbal]

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=0WXhO_-e3bM&noredirect=1" onclick="window.open(this.href);return false;

[bristol_Wanderer3]

I think the radicalizing effect of Obama is as much to do with who he is, rather than any judgement on his political skills.

So?

Erm, well, if I understood correctly you were making the point that Romney would have been much more politically skilled at bridging the cross party divide, and ultimately more effective in getting things done, based on his cross party efforts in Massachusetts, no?

My point is that President Obama is at least as skillful and capable politician as Mr Romney, indeed there is lots of knowledgeable opinion out there both acknowledging Obama's outstanding political skills (and the political weaknesses of Romney), including the ability to bring warring political foes together (reference his time working as a community organizer in Chicago), but he generates such irrational personal hatred from elements within the Republican party you get these ridiculous stand offs. Mitch McConnell the Republican leader in the Senate, is on record in stating that his most important objective was to make President Obama a one term president.

So I guess the point I am making is that the only reason Mr Romney would have been more effective in terms of bridging the ideological chasm between the two sides, is if the democrats would have been prepared to act more reasonably than the TEA party infested Republicans have so far been prepared to do, and that its certainly not about any greater political talents that Romney has access to.

[bristol_Wanderer3]

Given everything which has gone on in the last 4 years I'm just about for giving Obama another term but I still feel disappointed on the way he's acted regards a credible deficit reduction plan. Ignoring his own commissions' findings etc.

More depressing is the inability of many politicians over there to accept any compromise when it comes to getting a decent ratio of spending cuts to tax increases into a plan (something like 75:25 to 80:20). The deadlock and fiscal cliffs stuff is one giant game of chicken that I find distasteful when it's dictating economic policy.

I much prefer our system of democracy where the Chancellor can simply read out the budget and that's that*. Gets stuff done.. but there you go.


* except for sausage roll tax

The European system of electing governments with the power to govern does seem more logical, but its important to remember that the US is a democratic republic as opposed to a true democracy. The idea is that each of the states governs themselves, and the federal government only gets involved where there is common interest such as defence, foreign relations, major crime etc. Thus the system is wholly intended to make it as hard as possible for the federal government to make much of an impact, the system is in effect acting as limiting agent against overreach by the federal government, thus protecting states rights, and "freedom".

The concept of freedom, or loss of it, is one of the main ideals behind the TEA Party, who perceive Obamacare as wealth distribution, and thus the whole Obama agenda as marxist/communist. When you add in the natural hate towards Obama in the confederacy states, and the dominating influence of the TEA party in the GOP, then you have a completely polarized political scene that has so far only come together when the outcome of not doing so would mean the country would start to be unable to operate.

My preference from the outside would be for a more federal US in order for them to govern more effectively, I can't handle in my mind how the world's most important economy can let their debt ceiling be played about with by a stubborn House using it as a threat.

This is probably also true when certain states make decisions around social issues which are rather wacky, out of step or seemingly stupid by global standard - for example the teaching of creationism.

I also don't like the politicisation of judges to the Supreme Court. What are we at now, 4 of each and 1 independent who could determine judgement calls all by himself, but that's for another day probably.

My view is undoubtedly influenced by growing up in a relatively small and United Kingdom though.

The thing I think is often forgotten is the redistribution which already happens -

http://www.economist.com/blogs/dailycha ... scal-union" onclick="window.open(this.href);return false;

Yeah, you are highlighting the hypocrasy of the Republican position, who pride themselves on freedom, personal responsibility, and fiscal responsibility, and limited government. Yet, more red states require larger amounts of government expenditure, and the social conservatives want to use government to implement their ideals such as limiting access to contraception and abortion facilities, and limiting social freedoms to promote a particular way of a religious based way of living.

The responsibility for the next supreme court appointees was probably the biggest issue at stake in this presidential election. Four of the existing judges are in their mid-late 70s, including two liberals and two conservatives, and it is very likely that Obama will make a number of new appointments. It is now more possible that the court will be more liberal after the next four years, but if this election had gone the other way and the court had gone more conservative, then there are numerous religious social conservatives desperate, amongst other things in a wider agenda, to use the Supreme Court to overturn Roe v Wade, which would end a woman's right to have the right to abortion (which incidentally includes things like the morning after pill), and thus allow states to pass legislation banning it.

[mummywhycantieatcrayons]

So I guess the point I am making is that the only reason Mr Romney would have been more effective in terms of bridging the ideological chasm between the two sides, is if the democrats would have been prepared to act more reasonably than the TEA party infested Republicans have so far been prepared to do, and that its certainly not about any greater political talents that Romney has access to.

Right.

Again, so?

[Montreal Wanderer]

So I guess the point I am making is that the only reason Mr Romney would have been more effective in terms of bridging the ideological chasm between the two sides, is if the democrats would have been prepared to act more reasonably than the TEA party infested Republicans have so far been prepared to do, and that its certainly not about any greater political talents that Romney has access to.

Right.

Again, so?

Come on, PB! Don't be bitter! You would have had to eat a lot of your words if Romney won. His foreign policy would be terrifying and his economic policies would have created massive unemployment amongst the unskilled workers, while making the rich richer. His party has many nasty right-wing fundamentalist groupings, some of which make the tea party seem moderate. Now, I think, the GOP will have to rethink itself. Romney failed to beat a president who had not performed that well (we agree there) and in tough economic times - the best winning conditions he could hope for. Well, the US has now spent six billion to end up in the same place.

[superjohnmcginlay]

Aye.
I was treated to his full half hour God Bless America victory acceptance speech this morning courtesy of five live. I nearly had to pull the car over and throw up it was so nauseating. I genuinely expected Morgan Freeman to do a voice over at the end and it was so Hollywood stereotypical.

Least you didn't get to see it. Put BBC news on this morning while having my morning coffee and cigarettes and they had that shite on instead.

[bristol_Wanderer3]

So I guess the point I am making is that the only reason Mr Romney would have been more effective in terms of bridging the ideological chasm between the two sides, is if the democrats would have been prepared to act more reasonably than the TEA party infested Republicans have so far been prepared to do, and that its certainly not about any greater political talents that Romney has access to.

Right.

Again, so?

Ok. This is a politics forum. A place where politics, in this case US politics, gets discussed. So this particular discussion as gone something like this.

1.) You said:

As governor he thought it should be a state programme. Is this inconsistent?

Anyway, who could be less effective at bi-partisanship than Obama?

The fact is he is a divisive politician with little skill as a broker. His mere presence is a radicalising impact on the Republican party.

As for re-election - has a sitting president ever been successfully challenged in his party's primaries?

2.) I said its got nothing to do with him being a "divisive politician with little skill as a broker". In fact I would go as far to say in many knowledgeable people's opinion this is completely wrong, and he is a skilled and tough politician who gains respect from both his own side and the other side, and it is the extremism of the TEA party that is responsible for the lack of bi-partisanship.

3.) Normally, following standard rules of conversation, you would now come back with points to back up your original point, make a related point, or comment on my point, or not respond at all.

[Prufrock]

I think what Crayons is verbosely and articulately saying is that even if it is entirely the fault of the Tea Party, and even if Obama is a tough and skilled politician with respect from both sides, the Tea Party haven't gone away, they still hate him and so he is going to have a massive fight to be even close to effective at bi-partisanship. You can argue all you like over whether or not it is his fault, it doesn't change the, ahem, facts on the ground.

Anyway, balls to that, he is a shit hot public speaker so I'm enjoying listening to his speeches of how it's all going to be ace so I can save them up to bash him with when it isn't!

[bristol_Wanderer3]

From twitter:

"Clint Eastwood is currently at home, arguing with all his furniture about what went wrong"

[americantrotter]

I think the radicalizing effect of Obama is as much to do with who he is, rather than any judgement on his political skills.

So?

Erm, well, if I understood correctly you were making the point that Romney would have been much more politically skilled at bridging the cross party divide, and ultimately more effective in getting things done, based on his cross party efforts in Massachusetts, no?

My point is that President Obama is at least as skillful and capable politician as Mr Romney, indeed there is lots of knowledgeable opinion out there both acknowledging Obama's outstanding political skills (and the political weaknesses of Romney), including the ability to bring warring political foes together (reference his time working as a community organizer in Chicago), but he generates such irrational personal hatred from elements within the Republican party you get these ridiculous stand offs. Mitch McConnell the Republican leader in the Senate, is on record in stating that his most important objective was to make President Obama a one term president.

So I guess the point I am making is that the only reason Mr Romney would have been more effective in terms of bridging the ideological chasm between the two sides, is if the democrats would have been prepared to act more reasonably than the TEA party infested Republicans have so far been prepared to do, and that its certainly not about any greater political talents that Romney has access to.

As an American who voted in this election I just want to say:

Spot On.

[bristol_Wanderer3]

I think what Crayons is verbosely and articulately saying is that even if it is entirely the fault of the Tea Party, and even if Obama is a tough and skilled politician with respect from both sides, the Tea Party haven't gone away, they still hate him and so he is going to have a massive fight to be even close to effective at bi-partisanship. You can argue all you like over whether or not it is his fault, it doesn't change the, ahem, facts on the ground.

Anyway, balls to that, he is a shit hot public speaker so I'm enjoying listening to his speeches of how it's all going to be ace so I can save them up to bash him with when it isn't!

Yeah his speech this morning was one of his best imo, and yeah it most definitely won't be ace!

Re bi-partisanship, yeah it doesn't change the facts, and the TEA party might continue their stance, and it might be 4 more years of the same. But just because the US system allows for this kind of obstructive approach to be effective, and just because we have an extremist right wing group willing to exploit it, doesn't to me mean their approach should be allowed to succeed by electing their guy, as I understood Mr Crayons to be suggesting. I mean that is the whole point of it isn't it? To take extremist positions that no democrat can ever agree with, refuse to compromise, then portray Obama as a poor politician for not compromising, and so get him out after one term. Maybe now that has failed, and more of the US electorate are aware of the tactics, they will be forced to change their game plan?

[boltonboris]

Cameron: "I look forward to working with President Obama for the next four years"

Two years, Dave. Two..

[thebish]

Cameron: "I look forward to working with President Obama for the next four years"

Two years, Dave. Two..

[Lord Kangana]

Well now they've re-elected a Marxist in a landslide, Mummy might have to rethink his position re Americans not doing Socialism.