Forum adverts like this one are shown to any user who is not logged in. Join us by filling out a tiny 3 field form and you will get your own, free, dakka user account which gives a good range of benefits to you: No adverts like this in the forums anymore. Times and dates in your local timezone. Full tracking of what you have read so you can skip to your first unread post, easily see what has changed since you last logged in, and easily see what is new at a glance. Email notifications for threads you want to watch closely. Being a part of the oldest wargaming community on the net. If you are already a member then feel free to login now.

Yeah, I skim the big 3 out of habit, but they're all really terrible. I like RCP a lot; I usually read whatever Robert Samuelson writes because it's always well thought out. Some of those guys are real toolboxes though.

AustonT wrote:

mwnciboo wrote:One things bugs me about American Politics, it's very binary. It's hard to compromise when one side is black and the other white. There are many shades, but the american political establishment is either Pro or anti anything, rather than tolerant of it with caveats or Pro subject if it is handled in the following way.

For an external observer, a Representative maybe slightly right of centre, or Ultra far right. Both get labelled Republicans and all that entails. The truth of politics is compromise, constantly undoing and redoing each other's work is not progress, it's stagnation or at least constantly wasted effort.

Maybe a third party would help to break up the partisan element in DC.

Once upon a time and not that long ago, within the electorates memory, American parties were shades of grey...and things were basically better here; if you were white. The last part comes from my friend Angel who looks creepily like Emilio Zapata and commented that he was born 50 years too late /3 second pause, and the wrong color. Maybe you had to be there.
I genuinely feel that the current two party system is egging on a new civil war. I love this country and its history but I think that a multiparty prime ministerial system would benefit us. But I am borderline crazy so, you know...don't bother telling me.

With this in mind, politicians (some at least) are intelligent creatures. I would definitely look to a cross party establishment of like minded individuals, and form a new party. How can a third party be excluded, this fundamentally is wrong. It's like Russia, you either vote Putin or not-Putin. Democrat or Republican, surely not every single american can be politically fairly represented by only two choices (Yes or No) there isn't even a third option of indifference or even a protest vote.

The third way, the Pragmatists way, you could call it "Libertarians" or "Liberty Party" or whatever, the principle being to be pragmatic. Obey the Law as sacrosanct, but allow all other things to be accepted (Gays, Gay parents, Darwinian Evolution and Intelligent design) Biology teaches Darwinism, and RE (Religious Education) covers Intelligent design. I did RE at school it was an easy subject and quite interesting, we had a great teacher, he taught us about every major religion, Shintoism, Taoism, Sikhism, Islam the whole lot, it was actually pretty interesting, Abrahamic Religions etc. All relevant and all good for understanding the world. I do admire your President for speaking out in favour of Same Sex parenting and backing his friends, any man who loves his friends and backs them to the hilt is honourable, at least to me. Equally this carries great weight with your Allies around the globe, to be a friend of America is beneficial , and to be an Ally is an honour. Instantly in response, Mitt Romney the Presidential Candidate pours the hate on the Gay community, it's so awful, live and let live. One of the greatest Americans of all time summed it up so well.

"Anger is an acid that can do more harm to the vessel in which it is stored than to anything on which it is poured." – Mark Twain

They aren't.

Hell, as I said earlier, the republicans are essentially (as far as the actual influential powers go, not the average voter) a conglomeration of libertarians (or wannabe libertarians who are actually federalists, like Ron Paul), right wing capitalistas, and socially conservative religious authoritarians.

The groups rarely agree when the debate gets down to the details, so they avoid it by trying to avoid the details.

Does it annoy you though? Where I live I am campaigning on education, as a Child in Wales only has £3500 pa spent on their education when a Child in Scotland England or Northern Island has upto £7000.

This is because the Welsh Assembly siphon's off funds from central government to prop up QUANGO's and stupid Welsh Language programmes (like teaching newly arrived ethnic minorities Welsh as well as English).

To be born in Wales means your child has a significantly less chance of a good education and has less resources available to the schools for budgets, books and resources.

It actually makes my blood boil that my politicians are so bad, that they are making a whole generation fall behind in education based on their geographic location within the nation.

http://www.walesonline.co.uk/news/wales-news/2012/01/16/schools-91466-30127646/

I would run for Office in Wales based on this only, a one trick pony and I wouldn't give a hoot, because this is so important.

Ouze wrote:Yeah, I skim the big 3 out of habit, but they're all really terrible. I like RCP a lot; I usually read whatever Robert Samuelson writes because it's always well thought out. Some of those guys are real toolboxes though.

Fair enough, I was trying to find the story on Google News. Which apparently is also made of fail.

I avoid going to Fox and MSNBC whenever possible because they are memory hogs and have a bunch of useless flash.

Ouze wrote:Yeah, I skim the big 3 out of habit, but they're all really terrible. I like RCP a lot; I usually read whatever Robert Samuelson writes because it's always well thought out. Some of those guys are real toolboxes though.

I know the RCP guys, they're based not far from from my apartment. Not bad dudes, but I think they're a bit conflicted in their mission.

RCP?

Real Clear Politics.

dogma wrote:Real Clear Politics.

Oh? ok. I like Real Clear Politics. They have stuff from all sides.

biccat wrote:Totally true. Except where it's false.

So to dispute this, you post a bunch of opinion columns repeating the information from the original dodgy news report. All of which fail to explain that the bill in question was a Republican summary of what they believed Obama's budget to be, and not actually Obama's budget.

Which basically means, cute html formatting aside, your argument is to repeat the original nonsense claim. Good job, footsoldier, keep shouting the Republican attack line, and hope the opposition gets bored with explaining why that's nonsense.


Automatically Appended Next Post:

BarBoBot wrote:obama had majorities in both the house and senate for 2 years after he was elected.... and he never got a budget passed then either.

He never intended to... a budget would constrain his spending, and all he knows how to do is to throw tax payer money around like its monopoly money.

Umm, you don't understand how budgets function in government. Not having one approved doesn't mean you just get to spend money wherever you please, so your claim above is basically nonsense.


Automatically Appended Next Post:

AustonT wrote:Then how do you explain Obamacare? Clearly he was able to pass unpopular legislation without the other party killing it out of hand. Don't get in the way of a good rant.

Long story short, the Democrats bypassed debate on the bill by taking a house bill on IRS reform and completely revising it to actually be the content of the senate healthcare reform act. Through some outrageous compromises with Democratic blue dogs (including the infamous Nebraska exemption) they got all 60 Democrats to agree to vote to end discussion on the bill, and vote to approve their bill. They then entered a process of reconciliation with the already passed house bill allowing them to finalise a revised healthcare bill that avoided any further fillibuster shenanigans, that stripped out all the compromises to the blue dogs, such as the infamous Nebraska compromise.

Basically, it's the kind of thing you can only do if one party and all it's major players dedicate all their time and political capital to pushing through. Doing the same each year for the annual budget would be impossible.


Automatically Appended Next Post:

ShumaGorath wrote:Please don't paraphrase me, just remember and talk about events as they actually were from now on. Obamacare has never been popular. It's needed and good but the public doesn't understand it, with most polls showing the vast majority of the electorate believing Fox news' lies about death panels and free healthcare for immigrants. Obamacare doesn't poll well because the media is yellow and people are idiots. That doesn't change the fact that it is unpopular (though the Rasmussen poll that showed 70% against was fake).

One of the funny things is that if you poll people on each individual component of Obamacare, they each come up as popular, and most as overwhelmingly popular. But if you ask about Obamacare, people are opposed.

In part it's due to FOX News and the Republicans running a really nasty, lie filled campaign against it, and it's also in part due to people loving the idea of fixing stuff, but freaking out when they actually get to the point of doing it. But a large part of the issue with Obamacare's unpopularity is that no Democrat actually stood up and championed the bill - no-one got out there and said "this is what this bill contains, and this is why it is important to do this".

A lot of people argued for the need for healthcare reform, but no-one argued for the need for this bill. It's no wonder somethings unpopular when no-one ever defended it.


Automatically Appended Next Post:

dogma wrote:Wow, MSNBC's site is a clusterfeth.

MSNBC is a clusterfeth.

Sometimes I think the solution would be to increase the number of congress and senate seats to 3 or 4 times the size to cut back on games like these from happening and actually feel like I have representation in government.

@Sebster
Thank you for that explanation.

AustonT wrote:@Sebster
Thank you for that explanation.

Not a problem mate.