The Political Junkie™ Thread - USA Edition

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.

**Dreadclaw69**

Ouze wrote:
reds8n wrote:Is there a specific reason why Iowa has become so important in the elections, or is it just one of those things has has happened and now just carries on ?

The latter, I assure you.

Note that other states have tried to move it earlier, and been punished by the parties for it. It's just the status quo at this point. As someone who lives in Iowa, I assure you it's incredible irritating - nonstop robocalls and phones books worth of junk mail.

streamdragon wrote:I'm pretty sure Iowa holds the first caucus of election season. They're also a weird purple state; they have a fairly conservative state government, yet they were the first state to legalize gay marriage, outlawed slavery well before the civil war and just generally lean towards personal civil rights. They're just a weird bunch and being the first caucus getting the early "win" is seen as important.

There's a bunch more stuff like that, too.

Iowa has a very weird character, politically. I'm not the Emperor of Iowa so I'm speaking on a personal level here but in my experience the most important thing to an Iowan is to be left alone to do what you want, much like a very conservative grandmother who is privately horrified by their queer grandson but will get into a fistfight in church over anyone who insults the gays. Dammit, she may not approve of Johnny, but if Johnny wants to sin in that bedroom, well, Johnny's the captain of his own soul, so to speak.

That was interesting reading, thank you

**Ahtman**

Ouze wrote:
I'm not the Emperor of Iowa

Just what the Emperor of Iowa would say...

Co'tor Shas wrote:
I don't know, the green party is pretty liberal.

**whembly**

Ouze wrote:
squidhills wrote:Contrary to what a lot of conservatives want to believe, we aren't all in love with Hillary over here on the left.

Well, the problem is that in the US, we only have a right wing, and an extreme right wing. There is no truly liberal party.

wat?

You serious?

**streamdragon**

Ouze wrote:

There's a bunch more stuff like that, too.

Iowa has a very weird character, politically. I'm not the Emperor of Iowa so I'm speaking on a personal level here but in my experience the most important thing to an Iowan is to be left alone to do what you want, much like a very conservative grandmother who is privately horrified by their queer grandson but will get into a fistfight in church over anyone who insults the gays. Dammit, she may not approve of Johnny, but if Johnny wants to sin in that bedroom, well, Johnny's the captain of his own soul, so to speak.

That was a pretty awesome read, thanks! How is the weather in Iowa? Pretty sure there's plenty of farmland, but ya know, retirement planning and all that...

**Bullockist**

whembly wrote:
Ouze wrote:
squidhills wrote:Contrary to what a lot of conservatives want to believe, we aren't all in love with Hillary over here on the left.

Well, the problem is that in the US, we only have a right wing, and an extreme right wing. There is no truly liberal party.

wat?

You serious?

I'd agree with Ouze, sure you have your outliers over there but on the whole US politics has a right wing bent to it. Other countries are a lot more liberal.

**whembly**

Bullockist wrote:
whembly wrote:
Ouze wrote:
squidhills wrote:Contrary to what a lot of conservatives want to believe, we aren't all in love with Hillary over here on the left.

Well, the problem is that in the US, we only have a right wing, and an extreme right wing. There is no truly liberal party.

wat?

You serious?

I'd agree with Ouze, sure you have your outliers over there but on the whole US politics has a right wing bent to it. Other countries are a lot more liberal.

He's saying that there's no leftist/liberal party here...

The Obamas, Clintons, Bidens, Warrens, Reid, Pelosi of the world would LOVE if the US was ran like the other liberal countries.

They simply haven't been successful... yet.

**Bullockist**

I think he was just pointing out that the "left" is far more centrist.

To illustrate, in Australia our Liberal party (which used to be a lot more liberal) is our right wing. Our right wing. We have the Labor party which is still a greatly union based organisation. I'm thinking that your centre is kinda to my countries right - in that regard I think what Ouze said is right.

**dogma**

whembly wrote:

The Obamas, Clintons, Bidens, Warrens, Reid, Pelosi of the world would LOVE if the US was ran like the other liberal countries.

Obama would probably like a truly liberal (and viable), party as would Pelosi and Warren...I'm not sure about the Clintons and Biden though. As much as conservatives like to pretend that they're persecuted, the American political landscape definitely leans to the right. Indeed, that's a large part of why activism has been traditionally associated with the left.

**Ouze**

streamdragon wrote:
That was a pretty awesome read, thanks! How is the weather in Iowa? Pretty sure there's plenty of farmland, but ya know, retirement planning and all that...

Winters are usually bitterly cold, and the rest of the year, the pollen is insufferable

I'd like to move at some point.

**Poppabear**

whembly wrote:
Bullockist wrote:
whembly wrote:
Ouze wrote:
squidhills wrote:Contrary to what a lot of conservatives want to believe, we aren't all in love with Hillary over here on the left.

Well, the problem is that in the US, we only have a right wing, and an extreme right wing. There is no truly liberal party.

wat?

You serious?

I'd agree with Ouze, sure you have your outliers over there but on the whole US politics has a right wing bent to it. Other countries are a lot more liberal.

He's saying that there's no leftist/liberal party here...

The Obamas, Clintons, Bidens, Warrens, Reid, Pelosi of the world would LOVE if the US was ran like the other liberal countries.

They simply haven't been successful... yet.

I think what most Americans forget is that if you take, lets say, for example, President Obama and put him on the political spectrum, he is still very, very, VERY far right (to be specific, the president is marked as Authoritarian right and people like Mitt Romney and Santorum are almost identical). So its so laughable when I say millions of Americans, call him a socialist, or even worse... a communist, Obama is NOT EVEN CLOSE, he actually would probably very much dislike *Real socialists. It just keeps reinforcing the fact the Americans are blind to almost everything about General politics outside 'American Politics'. Its just joke really.

**Ensis Ferrae**

Poppabear wrote:

I think what most Americans forget is that if you take, lets say, for example, President Obama and put him on the political spectrum, he is still very, very, VERY far right (to be specific, the president is marked as Authoritarian right and people like Mitt Romney and Santorum are almost identical). So its so laughable when I say millions of Americans, call him a socialist, or even worse... a communist, Obama is NOT EVEN CLOSE, he actually would probably very much dislike *Real socialists. It just keeps reinforcing the fact the Americans are blind to almost everything about General politics outside 'American Politics'. Its just joke really.

And at the same time, people call Reagan a Conservative, when in reality, he was a Classical Liberal. Santorum could be considered an actual conservative, yet the "Ultra-Conservative" superhero, Reagan, simply isn't

**Frazzled**

Bullockist wrote:
whembly wrote:
Ouze wrote:
squidhills wrote:Contrary to what a lot of conservatives want to believe, we aren't all in love with Hillary over here on the left.

Well, the problem is that in the US, we only have a right wing, and an extreme right wing. There is no truly liberal party.

wat?

You serious?

I'd agree with Ouze, sure you have your outliers over there but on the whole US politics has a right wing bent to it. Other countries are a lot more liberal.

And others are far more conservative. As an example: Asia, where you have classical Fascistic systems in control in China, Vietnam, Cambodia, and authoritarian regimes in Burma, Thailand (yes I am using old names I'm old), S Korea, Singapore, Malaysia etc.

Automatically Appended Next Post:

dogma wrote:
whembly wrote:

The Obamas, Clintons, Bidens, Warrens, Reid, Pelosi of the world would LOVE if the US was ran like the other liberal countries.

Obama would probably like a truly liberal (and viable), party as would Pelosi and Warren...I'm not sure about the Clintons and Biden though. As much as conservatives like to pretend that they're persecuted, the American political landscape definitely leans to the right. Indeed, that's a large part of why activism has been traditionally associated with the left.

Thats breaking though. The Democratic Party has substantially shifted left since the Clinton era. Inversely the Republican Party has shifted right.

Kennedy would be considered a conservative Republican now, as would Bill Clinton. inversely I've heard Rubio, Cornyn, and even Saint Reagan as lefties...

**Do_I_Not_Like_That**

On this day 150 years ago, John Wilkes Booth shoots President Lincoln...

I've always wondered what 4 more years of Abe would have done for America...

**Bullockist**

Frazzled wrote:

And others are far more conservative. As an example: Asia, where you have classical Fascistic systems in control in China, Vietnam, Cambodia, and authoritarian regimes in Burma, Thailand (yes I am using old names I'm old), S Korea, Singapore, Malaysia etc.

Kennedy would be considered a conservative Republican now, as would Bill Clinton. inversely I've heard Rubio, Cornyn, and even Saint Reagan as lefties...

I hear what your saying Frazz but in a western democracy style govt, the US stands squarely to the right. Using your example I can say that Australia isn't a socialist government as it isn't as left as communist Russia.

Saint Reagan is a lefty? Goddarn, that's heresy! I say we dig him up and shoot him some, that'll learn that filthy pinko.

Do_I_not_like that - probably would have supported the theatre industry a lot more.

**d-usa**

Edit: slipped in the wrong thread there...

**Do_I_Not_Like_That**

Bullockist wrote:
Frazzled wrote:

And others are far more conservative. As an example: Asia, where you have classical Fascistic systems in control in China, Vietnam, Cambodia, and authoritarian regimes in Burma, Thailand (yes I am using old names I'm old), S Korea, Singapore, Malaysia etc.

Kennedy would be considered a conservative Republican now, as would Bill Clinton. inversely I've heard Rubio, Cornyn, and even Saint Reagan as lefties...

I hear what your saying Frazz but in a western democracy style govt, the US stands squarely to the right. Using your example I can say that Australia isn't a socialist government as it isn't as left as communist Russia.

Saint Reagan is a lefty? Goddarn, that's heresy! I say we dig him up and shoot him some, that'll learn that filthy pinko.

Do_I_not_like that - probably would have supported the theatre industry a lot more.

I'm pretty sure Reagan was cremated. You might end up shooting a pile of ash

**dogma**

Frazzled wrote:

Thats breaking though. The Democratic Party has substantially shifted left since the Clinton era. Inversely the Republican Party has shifted right.

The Democrats' campaigning has shifted left*, but very little of the legislation associated with that campaigning actually gets passed (or even presented) in a form agreeing with it. This is largely because many Democrat voters actually lean right on a number of issues.

**Frazzled**

Bullockist wrote:
Frazzled wrote:

And others are far more conservative. As an example: Asia, where you have classical Fascistic systems in control in China, Vietnam, Cambodia, and authoritarian regimes in Burma, Thailand (yes I am using old names I'm old), S Korea, Singapore, Malaysia etc.

Kennedy would be considered a conservative Republican now, as would Bill Clinton. inversely I've heard Rubio, Cornyn, and even Saint Reagan as lefties...

I hear what your saying Frazz but in a western democracy style govt, the US stands squarely to the right. Using your example I can say that Australia isn't a socialist government as it isn't as left as communist Russia.

Saint Reagan is a lefty? Goddarn, that's heresy! I say we dig him up and shoot him some, that'll learn that filthy pinko.

Do_I_not_like that - probably would have supported the theatre industry a lot more.

WEst Europe is only a part of Europe. It would be interesting to see what the politics are like in the old Warsaw Pact countries. I should look into that more.

But yea its all perspective. If you're a right winger nobody to the left of Cruz is a "libtard "sheep" (I mentioned Cornyn-look up Cornyn's record). Inversely to a leftwinger anyone to the right of Sanders is a Nazi.

**A Town Called Malus**

Do_I_Not_Like_That wrote:

I'm pretty sure Reagan was cremated. You might end up shooting a pile of ash

Then break out the hoover

**Co'tor Shas**

Just read an interesting story

Source

Republicans Are Making Foreign Policy The Obamacare Of The 2016 Election

In 2012, Republicans unanimously made a vow. If their party captured the White House, they would repeal President Obama's signature achievement, the Affordable Care Act.

In 2016, they've added something else: the reversal of Obama's signature foreign policy achievements, his outreach to hostile nations.

In his second term, Obama has been working to restore diplomatic relations with Cuba for the first time in more than half a century. His administration has also been negotiating a deal to limit Iran's nuclear program.

A number of GOP presidential contenders have vowed a U-turn on both policies, no matter what may happen between now and the next Inauguration Day.

That's why Obama's foreign policy may shape up to be the Obamacare of 2016. Republicans pledge to erase the president's acts as soon as a Republican is again sitting behind the Oval Office desk.

Sen. Marco Rubio, R-Fla., is among those calling for a reversal. Rubio spoke with NPR on Monday, the day he announced his presidential campaign. Rubio, who is Cuban-American, made the announcement at Miami's Freedom Tower, where Cuban exiles fleeing Fidel Castro's regime once came to receive federal support. Rubio is a fierce critic of Cuba's government and of warming U.S. relations with it.

Would Rubio really re-break diplomatic relations with Cuba if elected?

"Absolutely," he says. He says he wants "free and fair elections" in Cuba and that U.S. policy can provide "major leverage."

This was largely the approach that U.S. presidents took for generations — until December 2014, when Obama said that more than half a century of waiting was long enough.

Rubio is just as definite on Iran.

The U.S., other world powers and Iran have negotiated a framework agreement under which Iran would accept limits on its nuclear program in exchange for the lifting of global economic sanctions.

Rubio contends that what one president gives, the next may take away. "What [Obama] is banking on," Rubio says, "is that he is going to use a national security waiver to lift the sanctions," a move that allows the president to act without a vote in Congress. "We would simply re-impose the sanctions."

Rubio says he would make this move even if other world powers and the United Nations failed to follow suit, though he admits his move "wouldn't be as effective" that way.

Such a move could lead to a new confrontation with Iran. Rubio says he hopes to avoid war and (as with Cuba) buy time until the regime changes.

The prospect of such dramatic foreign policy reversals raises many questions. The simplest is this: Could a President Rubio (or Walker, or Cruz, or ...) really do these things?

Strictly speaking, yes.

A president can break diplomatic relations with Cuba, even if they've just been restored.

Supporters of Obama's Cuba policy, however, expect a different dynamic. The U.S. opening to Cuba may in time bring economic opportunities. American entrepreneurs won't be clamoring to rupture ties again: They will be clamoring to modify the longstanding economic embargo against Cuba that blocks U.S. business deals.

In theory, a president could also tear up an agreement made by his predecessor. George W. Bush did this in 2001, withdrawing from a climate treaty signed by Bill Clinton.

But when Republicans first floated the idea of walking away from the Iran deal — a notion mentioned in an open letter to Iran signed by 47 Republican senators — Iran's foreign minister insisted an agreement would be binding on the United States, withdrawal from it would be a "blatant violation of international law."

Obama is just as scornful. In an interview this month, we asked him about GOP contender Scott Walker, who had promised to break the Iran deal on "Day 1." Obama replied that this was a "foolish" idea, which would undermine the presidency and suggested that Walker would agree "after he's taken some time to bone up on foreign policy."

Republicans are boning up. Most elections don't turn on foreign policy, and by 2016, this one may not either. But there's plenty of discussion of it.

Republicans are running against the retiring president's foreign policy legacy. That means they also get one more chance — one last chance — to run against Obama.

Really, I think this is just the R's trying to get "oppose everything Obama" bandwagon up and running again. It has done them well before.

**whembly**

Co'tor Shas wrote:

Really, I think this is just the R's trying to get "oppose everything Obama" bandwagon up and running again. It has done them well before.

Well yeah... duh.

Care to list out the "good things" that Obama have done during is tenure?

**Co'tor Shas**

It depends on your perspective. I think opening relationships with Cuba is a good thing, it's about damn time. They pose no threat to anybody, and they aren't going to become more democratic by continuing to block all relations with them. Just piling on sanction isn't going to work in Iran, we either work out a deal, or bomb them into the ground. I think our economy is certainly improving, and a possible climate agreement with China would be great. I don't really like the ACA, but I'd rather we have something along the lines of the Canadian or British systems.

Really, not much of anything has come out of the Obama administaration, congress being deadlocked throughout most of his time in office.

But that's not really the point, the point is that they seem to be opposing anything Obama, for the point of opposing it and earning political points, instead of what is best.

**CptJake**

Or, perhaps they have a very different definition of 'what is best'.

**Do_I_Not_Like_That**

CptJake wrote:
Or, perhaps they have a very different definition of 'what is best'.

True, but Co'tor Shas is correct in the sense the Republicans can't keep blaming Obama for everything. Sooner or later they're going to have to come up with some ideas and initiatives of their own.

**Co'tor Shas**

Why oppose opening relations with Cuba, other than to score political points. I just don't see one.

**Jihadin**

Political Prisoners are still behind bars? Fugitives that are wanted in the US are still walking free in Cuba? Opening up a relationship is a two way street.

**Co'tor Shas**

And how do we fix those problems, by having no relations with them?

**Easy E**

Edit:

Now we hhave more than just Paul and Cruz in the race at least!

Anyone wnat to rate Rubio's chances? I think in a general he would be okay, but will have a tough time in primaries.

**Do_I_Not_Like_That**

Co'tor Shas wrote:
And how do we fix those problems, by having no relations with them?

I made the point earlier that one of the reasons why the USA dislikes Iran, is because Iran humiliated the USA in the 1970s.

Cuba humiliated the USA in the 1960s with the Bay of Pigs fiasco, and the missile crisis not long later, didn't exactly help things.

In my view, an element of pride is getting in the way of better relations.

Cuba is no threat to the USA and opening up the island to US goods, might led to the end of the regime. Once people get a taste of the good life, they tend to ditch Karl Marx in favour of an Amazon wishlist.

**Jihadin**

How long have we (the US) been talking to Cuba? Like six months or something? Cuba has not giving anything up and the reforms (few that they did was token). Next thing up is waivers for US Immigration Fee's for Cubans and ahead of the line. So far we're given but achieving nothing

Edit

Why not wait till the Castro brothers die off. Cuban military is well taken care of so they (Castro's) are not losing any control over the populace

Edit

By waivers the US Tax payers are footing the fee payments to process Immigration paperwork. USCIS is a fee base department.