The New American Politics thread

[Flash Walken]

Originally Posted by Displaced Flames fan

healthcare policy is the defining factor for where a party falls on the political spectrum?

Look, the point I am making is that my country is polarized. It really doesn't matter whether one group is more responsible for it than another. Give me people who are interested in reversing that. Hillary isn't. Where is the Brad Treliving of American politics? A bit of a silly analogy but it illustrates how I feel about Clinton as a leader moving forward.

What are these fringe left wing policies? Neutered environmental laws compared to those proposed by previous republican presidents, the GOP created healthcare reform? Increases to military funding? Corporate bailouts?

This is what a Bob Dole presidency looks like.

You don't really believe the country has shifted to the left, do you?

[Displaced Flames fan]

Originally Posted by DuffMan

The republicans don't want to unite. They will not unite.

They still have Mcconnells one term president mentality.

So? Why does that make Hillary a good choice? One hss nothing to do with the other.

[Displaced Flames fan]

Originally Posted by DuffMan

Ben Carson?

Love this Ben Carson promo.

Wonder if the guy will mention Benghazi, Hillary Clinton or the black vote!

]

Your point?

[Displaced Flames fan]

Originally Posted by Flash Walken

What are these fringe left wing policies? Neutered environmental laws compared to those proposed by previous republican presidents, the GOP created healthcare reform? Increases to military funding? Corporate bailouts?

This is what a Bob Dole presidency looks like.

You don't really believe the country has shifted to the left, do you?

No. Never said the country has shifted to the left.

it's pretty clear at this point that nobody is interested in talking about what I've been pointing out about the polarization of the United States. Incredibly odd.

[Flash Walken]

Originally Posted by Displaced Flames fan

No. Never said the country has shifted to the left.

it's pretty clear at this point that nobody is interested in talking about what I've been pointing out about the polarization of the United States. Incredibly odd.

I'm sorry, I equated what you said about the democratic party and extrapolated it onto the two term mandate he got.

I still don't see evidence of the democratic party shifting to the left at all. What makes you say that?

[Tinordi]

Originally Posted by Displaced Flames fan

healthcare policy is the defining factor for where a party falls on the political spectrum?

Look, the point I am making is that my country is polarized. It really doesn't matter whether one group is more responsible for it than another. Give me people who are interested in reversing that. Hillary isn't. Where is the Brad Treliving of American politics? A bit of a silly analogy but it illustrates how I feel about Clinton as a leader moving forward.

This is a classic American political fallacy that's increasingly influential among politically disconnected people. The desire for a messianic president who will solve America's problems is fundamentally ignorant of the actual workings of government.

American's belief in the saving powers of the presidency are fundamentally misplaced and lead to this line of reasoning. "We need someone to rise above and solve our problems." No. You need to understand how your system of government works and how actually powerless the president is within that system. If you hate polarization vote for politically moderate candidates in congress and to hell with the president.

Please read this article:

The American system has traditionally had certain features that reduced the stakes—notably, political parties that encompassed a diverse range of opinions and often acted at cross purposes with themselves. But today the parties operate as disciplined, consistent units. According to Congressional Quarterly, in 2009 and 2010 Democrats and Republicans voted with their parties ninety per cent of the time. That rigidity has made American democracy much more difficult to manage—and it has made the President, as party leader, a much more divisive figure.

Edwards, ever the data cruncher, has the numbers to back up this perception. “When President Obama took office, he enjoyed a 68 percent approval level, the highest of any newly elected president since John F. Kennedy,” he wrote in a recent paper. “For all of his hopes about bipartisanship, however, his early approval ratings were the most polarized of any president in the past four decades. By February 15, less than a month after taking office, only 30 percent of Republicans approved of his performance in office while 89 percent of Democrats and 63 percent of Independents approved. The gap between Democratic and Republican approval had already reached 59 percentage points—and Obama never again reached even 30 percent approval among Republicans.”

This, Edwards says, is the reality facing modern Presidents, and one they would do well to accommodate. “In a rational world, strategies for governing should match the opportunities to be exploited,” he writes. “Barack Obama is only the latest in a long line of presidents who have not been able to transform the political landscape through their efforts at persuasion. When he succeeded in achieving major change, it was by mobilizing those predisposed to support him and driving legislation through Congress on a party-line vote.”

That’s easier said than done. We don’t have a system of government set up for Presidents to drive legislation through Congress. Rather, we have a system that was designed to encourage division between the branches but to resist the formation of political parties. The parties formed anyway, and they now use the branches to compete with one another. Add in minority protections like the filibuster, and you have a system in which the job of the President is to persuade an opposition party that has both the incentive and the power to resist him.

Jim Cooper says, “We’ve effectively lost our Congress and gained a parliament.” He adds, “At least a Prime Minister is empowered to get things done,” but “we have the extreme polarization of a parliament, with party-line voting, without the empowered Prime Minister.” And you can’t solve that with a speech.

http://www.newyorker.com/reporting/2...urrentPage=all

[DuffMan]

Originally Posted by Displaced Flames fan

So? Why does that make Hillary a good choice? One hss nothing to do with the other.

Hunh? I must've been pretty drunk when I wrote that because I totally don't remember saying, that is why Hillary is a good choice.

[DuffMan]

Originally Posted by Displaced Flames fan

Your point?

Because it's funny, that's the point.

No really, ben Carson, has nothing to offer, but if you don't vote for him, you will get more benghazi's. I like that campaign style.

[Senator Clay Davis]

All it takes is one Tea Party crazy getting elected (and not even technically to office) and this thread is alive again. So I suppose we can thank them for that at least?

[ernie]

Originally Posted by Senator Clay Davis

All it takes is one Tea Party crazy getting elected (and not even technically to office) and this thread is alive again. So I suppose we can thank them for that at least?

Well if "miracles from God" don't get a thread started again nothing will.

And yes that is exactly what the primary winning tea party crazy is calling this. A miracle from God.

[Coach]

Originally Posted by ernie

Well if "miracles from God" don't get a thread started again nothing will.

And yes that is exactly what the primary winning tea party crazy is calling this. A miracle from God.

I have to say his win is pretty impressive given the vast differences in campaign funding. It would give me hope for the US moving forward that they can have some candidates overtake these old farts currently "running" things.

Too bad it's this bat**** crazy guy.

[Displaced Flames fan]

Originally Posted by DuffMan

Because it's funny, that's the point.

No really, ben Carson, has nothing to offer, but if you don't vote for him, you will get more benghazi's. I like that campaign style.

You realize that Ben Carson has nothing to do with the production of that video don't you?

[Displaced Flames fan]

Originally Posted by Tinordi

This is a classic American political fallacy that's increasingly influential among politically disconnected people. The desire for a messianic president who will solve America's problems is fundamentally ignorant of the actual workings of government.

American's belief in the saving powers of the presidency are fundamentally misplaced and lead to this line of reasoning. "We need someone to rise above and solve our problems." No. You need to understand how your system of government works and how actually powerless the president is within that system. If you hate polarization vote for politically moderate candidates in congress and to hell with the president.

Please read this article:



http://www.newyorker.com/reporting/2...urrentPage=all

You can take your condescending post and shove it up your ass.

I am well aware of how our government works. Nowhere do I say anything about a President "solving our problems". I said we need a uniter. Someone who is not a divisive leader. There's a huge difference.

Unbelievable.

Good grief, the article you posted supports my point.

Your theory regarding moderates in Congress is bang on and exactly what I've been doing the last 25 years since I started voting. The President DOES matter. The divisiveness is almost always in reaction to who is President. Conservative talk radio lives off of it and is hugely influential with the group of people you seem to think I belong to. Congressional Democrats blasted Bush in the Press for 8 years. Congressional Republicans have done the same to Obama the last 6. The press reports it to the people. The people, depending on their allegiance, repeat it. Yeah, the President doesn't have a whole lot of power to initiate change, but to dismiss the office as unimportant is extremely naive. It is absolutely important and if we can elect someone who can avoid the divisiveness and negativity then maybe this cancer that is divding us will shrink!

[DuffMan]

Originally Posted by Displaced Flames fan

You can take your condescending post and shove it up your ass.

I am well aware of how our government works. Nowhere do I say anything about a President "solving our problems". I said we need a uniter. Someone who is not a divisive leader. There's a huge difference.

Unbelievable.

Good grief, the article you posted supports my point!

Maybe so we can all understand what it is you're getting at... why don't explain how you think a President can be a uniter? and what the outcome of being a uniter you would expect from him/her?

[Coach]

Originally Posted by Displaced Flames fan

You can take your condescending post and shove it up your ass.

I am well aware of how our government works. Nowhere do I say anything about a President "solving our problems". I said we need a uniter. Someone who is not a divisive leader. There's a huge difference.

Unbelievable.

Good grief, the article you posted supports my point!

I think the point is that Obama was supposed to be that, but the COP has blocked anything he's tried to do. Is there anyone the Democrats could put forth that the Republicans would actually work with?

A President has little power to actually put bills through and create a uniting attitude, even if he wants to. That mindset has to come from congress, which is just a hot mess. Meaning it's up to constituants to acutally vote in people who will cooperate with the other side, but it seems everyone thats winning does so by attacking the other person and declaring a stance AGAINST the government.

[DuffMan]

Originally Posted by Displaced Flames fan

You realize that Ben Carson has nothing to do with the production of that video don't you?

maybe, but he did say this

"Marriage is between a man and a woman. It's a well-established, fundamental pillar of society and no group, be they gays, be they NAMBLA, be they people who believe in bestiality -- it doesn't matter what they are, they don't get to change the definition."

and this

"I have to tell you, ObamaCare is really, I think, the worst thing that has happened in this nation since slavery. And it is in a way, it is slavery in a way."

[Displaced Flames fan]

Originally Posted by DuffMan

Maybe so we can all understand what it is you're getting at... why don't explain how you think a President can be a uniter? and what the outcome of being a uniter you would expect from him/her?

I explained it in the edit above.

[Displaced Flames fan]

Originally Posted by MattyC

I think the point is that Obama was supposed to be that, but the COP has blocked anything he's tried to do. Is there anyone the Democrats could put forth that the Republicans would actually work with?

A President has little power to actually put bills through and create a uniting attitude, even if he wants to. That mindset has to come from congress, which is just a hot mess. Meaning it's up to constituants to acutally vote in people who will cooperate with the other side, but it seems everyone thats winning does so by attacking the other person and declaring a stance AGAINST the government.

Yes, the whole process is a hot mess. I voted for Obama because I didn't feel he was divisive as a leader, and for the most part he hasn't been. I don't feel that Hillary Clinton is capable of NOT being divsive. It's pretty straight forward and this is the third or fourth time I've explained it.

[Tinordi]

If only we had a uniter, we need a great uniter! This is just hopelessly naive understanding of the current problems.

If by uniter you mean a republican in sheep's clothing, a democrat president (which looks like a long-term trend) that just does whatever republicans went then yes, that would work. That president would "unite"

The bottom line is that you're having intense polarization as a reaction to an increasingly insane extremist sliver of a right wing base.

http://nymag.com/daily/intelligencer...migration.html

How can you be a "uniter" while looking at the graph below.

[Displaced Flames fan]

Originally Posted by DuffMan

maybe, but he did say this

"Marriage is between a man and a woman. It's a well-established, fundamental pillar of society and no group, be they gays, be they NAMBLA, be they people who believe in bestiality -- it doesn't matter what they are, they don't get to change the definition."

and this

"I have to tell you, ObamaCare is really, I think, the worst thing that has happened in this nation since slavery. And it is in a way, it is slavery in a way."

Item #1: The President has no real legislative power. Who the hell cares what he believes, right? Besides President Obama and Hillary have previously both made similar statements and then changed their mind (which is their perrogative IMO).

Item #2: I believe a man of his background might have some superior ideas on how to fix healthcare in this country. Lack of personal insurance is a symptom, not the problem.