Indecision 2012

[Sutekh]

You probably need more parties... You have a federal system and yet only 2 real parties and one overall premier speaking for 330 million... Something went wrong. It might be better to treat your politicians with a bit more contempt, they seem to be viewed as leaders, whereas in the UK we see them as faciliators of public life who are pushing their luck. Very few people in the UK would put a poster of a candidate in their window. People seem to express their identity through politicians in America, which isn't a good idea IMO

I can imagine how annoying it is when Euros tell you how you should take a dump, apologies!

[orestes]

Congress has an 8% approval rating so it has very few admirers at the moment, other than corporations and lobbies.

[PooPooMeowChow]

Speaking about third parties, how's Gary Johnson doing? Will he be eligible for debates?

This depends on what Ron Paul does. Dr. Paul will be on Leno tonight "making a big announcement". Rumors are he's gunna run 3rd party, be Gary Johnsons VP, Johnson gives up the Libertarian spot to Paul and becomes his VP or Paul simply announces his retirement.

I think you something like 20% to get in the debates. With Pauls supporters that will happen, (unless some one changes some rule last second). If Dr. Paul retires, Johnson will get some of the Paul supporter but not all so it's be close in that scenario.

Keep in mind Johnson had the required percentage for a lot of the republican debates they just didn't let him in.

[Deus Ex Machina]

You probably need more parties... You have a federal system and yet only 2 real parties and one overall premier speaking for 330 million... Something went wrong. It might be better to treat your politicians with a bit more contempt, they seem to be viewed as leaders, whereas in the UK we see them as faciliators of public life who are pushing their luck. Very few people in the UK would put a poster of a candidate in their window. People seem to express their identity through politicians in America, which isn't a good idea IMO

I can imagine how annoying it is when Euros tell you how you should take a dump, apologies!

We have quite a few parties, but only two manage to get elected with regularity. This used to upset me, but doesn't really anymore. It makes sense due to the math of the thing. If you need 50%+ percent of the vote, a party that can get it has no incentive to get smaller. A party that can't has every incentive to get bigger. Someone that would otherwise start and support a new party has every incentive to pick one of the already existing two for those same reasons. We'd have more successful parties if we 'formed a government' euro style where a small majority (not 50%+ but the most) got to pack their parliament.

If you ask me that 'contempt' is part of the problem. Most Americans hate 'the government'. Ask them what they think of Congress as a whole and they'll shit all over them.

Ask them who the representative in their district is, or who their two senators are, or how any of them voted on any given issue, and you'll be met with silence.

[littlemonkey613]

Congress has an 8% approval rating so it has very few admirers at the moment, other than corporations and lobbies.

Congress's approval is always extremely low but the problem is that people tend to favor their own Congressman. That's why incumbency rates are so high.

[Magtig]

Watching the DNC live on youtube.

"Americans Coming Together"

*snicker*


edit: btw, www.youtube.com/politics has live coverage from four different sources; some even have different camera angles.

[Hazekiah]

From the new "Rolling Stone":

[allegro]

Ask them who the representative in their district is, or who their two senators are, or how any of them voted on any given issue, and you'll be met with silence.

Very true. It's frustrating.

People only seem to give a shit when there's a Presidential election, but many rarely get involved in local or state elections or politics.


On another note, I am *totally* sucked into this Democratic National Convention. I'm drunk on democracy.

[Magtig]

If Obama really wants to promote equal treatment of women maybe he should institute pay for all first ladies from this day forward.

[Jinsai]

really Ted Strickland? Really?

[littlemonkey613]

They didn't want to lose by THAT MUCH to the RNC in the categories of batshit and childishness.

[Magtig]

Wasn't that the same guy who was basically saying that Mitt Romney wanted children to go hungry, and no one getting a degree in college? What a gunt.

[allegro]

Here's a fascinating interview of Jonathan Turley, constitutional law professor at The George Washington University Law School:

http://truth-out.org/opinion/item/11...s-constitution

(Disregard anything in that article written by John Cusack; he's a TERRIBLE writer and he is way too over-the-top. Plus, he's fucking John Cusack, fer Christ sake.)

[littlemonkey613]

compared to Ann Romney though AHHA. Michelle do WERK <3

[Jinsai]

I really wish speakers would drop the whole "Mitt Romney said he liked being able to fire people" sound byte. It's almost as bad the GOP harping on the "you didn't build that" sound byte.

[littlemonkey613]

President Bill uses Fact Checker! Its SUPER EFFECTIVE!

Seriously I thought the Democrats would have no way off effectively combatting the specific lies about Obama and welfare, medicare, and taxes without sounding too dry to reach the American people. Who would have thought FACTS + Bill's charisma = the perfect antidote. Wow thank god.

[orestes]

It got a bit wonky near the end and for some, was probably too long, but I thought it was a good speech.

[Magtig]

CBS fact checked Clinton, and a surprisingly large amount of what he said checks out (with a few half truths thrown in here and there).

http://www.cbsnews.com/8301-250_162-...in;contentBody

[50 Volt Phantom]

Oh yeah?

http://www.breitbart.com/Big-Governm...n-Clinton-Lies

[Magtig]

I'm sorry but reading any kind of fact checking from anything Breitbart created is purely a waste of time (what?! you mean they don't like Clinton!? I'm floored. no really). It would be like asking you to consider a fact checking article written by Arriana Huffington or Bill Maher as a credible source.

[littlemonkey613]

http://factcheck.org/2012/09/our-clinton-nightmare/

factcheck.org is actually non partisan. SO BLAMMMOOOOO

"Former President Bill Clinton’s stem-winding nomination speech was a fact-checker’s nightmare: lots of effort required to run down his many statistics and factual claims, producing little for us to write about.Republicans will find plenty of Clinton’s scorching opinions objectionable. But with few exceptions, we found his stats checked out."

Also

He also accused Republicans of blocking 1 million potential new jobs, but that checked out, too:
"Two independent economists — Mark Zandi of Moody’s Analytics and Joel Prakken of Macroeconomics Advisers — had estimated that Obama’s proposed American Jobs Act would add more than 1 million jobs. Zandi claimed it would add 1.9 million jobs; Prakken 1.3 million. Senate Republicans blocked the $447 billion measure, and Senate Republican Leader Mitch McConnell denounced it as “a charade that’s meant to give Democrats a political edge” in 2012"

[50 Volt Phantom]

Ah yes, Factcheck.org, whose director's choice of media appearances and co-authored books and whose connection through the Annenberg Foundation to one Bill Ayers doesn't at all raise a red flag on bias.

[littlemonkey613]

It's a non partisan organization... its obviously not run by non partisan people b/c there's no such thing.....
There's nothing wrong with looking into your red flags but if you look at their fact checking record its very clean in respect to actually remaining non partisan. Go ahead and check it out. It's not a fucking liberal journal, blog or newspaper.

[Corvus T. Cosmonaut]

Ah yes, Factcheck.org, whose director's choice of media appearances and co-authored books and whose connection through the Annenberg Foundation to one Bill Ayers doesn't at all raise a red flag on bias.

Ah, yes, character assassination through guilt by association. Because fact-checking is an opaque business, a web of information ruled by elites confirming or denying statements that cannot otherwise be confirmed nor denied; behind their dark veil they pull the strings, commanding that we kneel; we, who may disagree, we have no means of proposing substantive challenge to their claims.

Factcheckers Über Alles

[allegro]

Any time somebody trots out positive stuff about Ronald Reagan, I know anything else they're saying is bullshit.

I got LAID OFF during Reagan's reign. Houses were boarded up, mortgage interest rates were the highest in history, etc etc. If they canonize Reagan, I know they weren't born yet, or they're fucking senile.

[littlemonkey613]

Don't forget AIDS! Or as Reagan liked to call it, ________________.

[Magtig]

Politifact.com, although it has less comprehensive coverage, also rates most of Bill Clinton's speech as factual. So let's see, on the one side we have Breitbart, on the other we have ABC, Fact Check, and Politifact.

[Dra508]

Any time somebody trots out positive stuff about Ronald Reagan, I know anything else they're saying is bullshit.

I got LAID OFF during Reagan's reign. Houses were boarded up, mortgage interest rates were the highest in history, etc etc. If they canonize Reagan, I know they weren't born yet, or they're fucking senile.

I'm pretty sure they blamed all that on Carter.

My grandma thought Nancy Reagan was the anti-christ.

And if anyone thinks Bubba went long, go find his nomination speech for Mike Dukakis back in 1988. You'd have thought for sure his political career was O-V-E-R before it got really started.

[50 Volt Phantom]

Politifact.com, although it has less comprehensive coverage, also rates most of Bill Clinton's speech as factual. So let's see, on the one side we have Breitbart, on the other we have ABC, Fact Check, and Politifact.

So one totally biased source and two questionable ones, I'll stick with Breitbart.

[Corvus T. Cosmonaut]

We never doubted that you would, Phantom.