US Presidential Election 2012

I remember when they bombed Manchester in 96, thank God there were no fatalities that day, there used to be Irish pubs in the town where English people were not welcome at all, to enter you had to have a sign, like a badge or some method of recognition to demonstrate whether you were Protestant or Catholick, I used to go with my friend a Catholick guy, and he had to 'vouch' for me so to speak, we went because of the Craic, the music was spectacular, and the draught Guinness, but it was rather odd. Its funny because the Irish are the friendliest people I have ever met, went to Dublin and I was literaly shocked how friendly they all were, it was an amazing experience.

Pettytyrant101 wrote:I have no beef with the Jews in partcular- I dislike them only as much as I dislike all other organised religious groups- I'm an equal loather of them all. But I know a severe wrong when I see one staring me in the face.
And sure theres real bad on both sides, and there is real hatred there too- but there can be another way. Northen Ireland has proved that. It can be done.
But the starting block is for each side to recongnise the equality and legitamacy of the other, and both sides have yet to do that.
The problem is also one side is hugely rich and heavily armoured and the other poor and weakly armed. So Israel doesn't have to make any compromsises. But country or person, a bully is a bully and I dont like them.''

On another note was on CNN and read this;

"A Mississippi church that wouldn't allow a black couple to marry in its sanctuary because of the couple's race appears to be trying to right a wrong, as officials with the church's denomination decried the incident.
Charles and Te' Andrea Wilson, regular attendees at First Baptist Church in Crystal Springs, Mississippi, were forced to relocate their wedding this month at the last minute. Their pastor, Stan Weatherford, made the relocation request on behalf of some congregants who didn't want to see the couple married there."

I dont know whether to celebrate it has at least been decried or to be horrified that such a thing is still going on in America in the modern world.

I am very sorry you loathe my people Petty, because I am one of them, and all the ones i know and love and fellowship with are just like me.

Its not the individuals Leelee, its the organisations I loathe- I dont believe organised religion is a force for good- personal belief is a dfferent matter- but the major religions are an excuse for control and manipulation. Not finding answers.
The Catholic church has so many obvious and well known corruptions its not worth listing. The Baptist and protestant churches adhere to bigotism and ignorance. Islam in pratice is all too often oprressive and devisive.

I loathe anything which tells one group of humans they are somehow different from another group and which delibretly maintains prejudices - we are all just apes with big ideas. All the same.
Killing each other over something as ridiculous as which group knows God best is ludicrous. Preaching to hate the other lot because their made up version of God is different from someone elses made up version of God gets humanity nowhere (and even if there is a God the Churches versions are still made up as not one of them can produce one iota of anything approaching a proof).
So forgive me leelee- but I opppose opression and I oppose filling peoples heads with ideas which lead to hatred and the main purveyorss of that thinking for centuries has been religious thought.
Its time we grew up a bit.

Gays, politics and fast food- it must be a US thing.
For those who dont know what Im blethering on about it- a few days ago I noticed a story in the US media about the CEO of some chicken fast food chain who came out saying God would punish America for its attitude on gay marriage. In respone gay and civil liberties groups called for a boycott of their fast food chain and some Democratic govenors said they didnt want the food chain in their state with that attitude. And in response to that GOP candidates have come out rallying support and encouraging people to go there as a show of freedom of speech and as a show of support for what the CEO said.

Naturally I assumed a few days ago when I read this it was just silly season in the US media and it would be tommorows chip wrapper (or whatever the US equivelent is).
But rather the story seems to be growing by the day with more politicians and groups jumping on it all the time.

Perhaps its because in a ludicrous fashion it encapsulates everything Americans are divided by; religion, sexuality, captalism, if they can find a black person to get involved in it all they will have a Full House.

Pettytyrant101 wrote:But rather the story seems to be growing by the day with more politicians and groups jumping on it all the time.

That's putting it lightly. The Chick-fil-A controversy has become one of the larger ongoing news stories at the moment. "Chick-fil-A Appreciation Day" on August 1 appears to have been a significant success. It's kind of sad, but Jon Stewart offered a different perspective that made me smile.

Good old Jon Stewart- but is he right? Is gay marriage inevitable in the US? Is this another great civil rights battle that will be won. From the outside looking in it doesnt look that likely.

I think that in the long run it's pretty much inevitable. There have been setbacks, of course, and there probably will be more in the future. However, if nothing else than generational change will tip public opinion far enough. I don't think it will take that long though since public support for gay marriage has grown steadily in recent years according to opinion polls. Those same polls indicate that support is markedly higher among younger people. Obviously there will continue to be places where gay marriage remains relatively unpopular -- especially in the South but really in all rural areas -- but that's true of all civil rights causes in America.

I'm not trying to say we should all start celebrating now, but I have a fairly optimistic view of the long run.

Eldorion wrote:-- especially in the South but really in all rural areas -- but that's true of all civil rights causes in America.

Speaking from a very rural area, I think same sex marriage is generally recognized as inevitable, and the more people get to see and know stable, normal gay couples the less resistance even the older generation has to the idea. A lot of the resistance that still exists is just the resistance to ANY change.

Our state's governor has just signed a law legalizing same sex marriage. It's being tested now and expect it will stand. I think there are something like 6 states that have legalized and another 6 pending. Each year a few more states will join until eventually it's the norm. That's the healthy way.

That's definitely encouraging to hear, Dave. I didn't mean to make a jab at all rural areas. I have a lot of family in central Pennsylvania though and in my experience once you get out of the metropolitan areas in the Northeast it's start to feel a lot more like the stereotypical "South". I wasn't trying to overgeneralize though and if I did I apologize. It's great to hear that progressive attitudes about same-sex marriage are spreading throughout the nation.

I just had a discussion (well in Scottish terms an argument) with someone over gay rights. They were of the view they were unnatural, that they were making people become gay and accept gays and that they should be treated as outcasts to dissuade it (thats a lot less crude than he put it).
I pointed out that homosexuality could not be considered to be unnatural as it occurs across mammal species and throughout nature. I pointed out that you dont wake up one morning and decide today you will be gay. You are born that way and have no more a choice over it than you do what colour your hair is.

The result of this? He fell back on claiming I must be 'one of them' and decided he could illustrate this point with a series of crude and pointless questions like "So you wouldn't mind watching two men have sex?" ect

Even in Scotland, a largely progressive liberal country I despair when I bump up against an attitude like this, fortuntely its fairly rare- the 'dicussion' ended up involving three sets of neighbours (its a very communial place) and out of them, ranging in ages from early 30's to 60+ only this one person had this attitude.

I recently heard a replay of an interview with Gore Vidal, who just died, in which he made a good case that the labels of 'gay' and 'straight' are a lot of the problem because many people feel forced to choose one "team" or the other.

He made the argument that human sexuality is much more complex and nuanced than that. He made the analogy to people who either like or hate to eat potatoes, and others who might prefer to eat turnips. (I can add graphic vegetable pictures if you like ) and the foolishness of judging people on one simple preference out of their whole personality.

Labelling and pigeon holing people is always doomed to failure- in fact doing that to almost anythng except actual pigeon holes is probably doomed to failure.
We live in a fractal universe- every time you try to examine something in greater detail you just see there is more and more complicated detail.

Eldorion wrote: I didn't mean to make a jab at all rural areas. I have a lot of family in central Pennsylvania though and in my experience once you get out of the metropolitan areas in the Northeast it's start to feel a lot more like the stereotypical "South". I wasn't trying to overgeneralize though and if I did I apologize.

No apology necessary.

In general though the rural stereotypes sometimes get a little hard for me to understand.
Can you explain to me how people can think of us as homophobic at the same time they're worrying we'll treat them like Ned Beatty in "Deliverence"?

It's hard to reassure people on one score without confirming their worst fears on the other.

I shouldnt think folks who are so close to their livestock could maintain many sexual prejudices!

The Scottish heritage runs deep in rural America.

Grandpaw Tyrant was a shepherd- hey what are you implying about grandpaw?!

Romney is due to announce his VP pick at a campaign event later this morning (Saturday) but it's being widely reported now that he's going with Paul Ryan, a Congressman from Wisconsin best known for his budget plan from a year or two ago that would basically gut the entire federal government. This made him popular with the Tea Party but various special interest groups, especially seniors, weren't thrilled about how much he wanted to cut from popular programs like social security. If he is the pick then I'm sure his proposals will be talked about until everyone has heard of them. I could see this really blowing up in Romney's face in terms of courting the centrist vote.

Ryan it is!
The BBC report on the choice includes this line;

'The BBC's North America Editor Mark Mardell says the decision is a bold and ideological choice.'

'Bold and ideoligical?' That sounds like Sir Humphrey in Yes, Minister ony for bold read 'foolhardy' and ideological read 'he's a nutter'.!

I think Romney was looking for a "game-changer" the same way that McCain was in 2008 because he realized that he wasn't interesting or charismatic enough to win on his own. While Ryan and Palin are quite different -- for one, Ryan can actually speak to the press -- I could see this backfiring on Romney in a similar way. Middle-of-the-road voters don't generally respond well to blatant and extreme ideological picks. The base doesn't need firing up because they're almost certain to vote for their party's nominee already even if they aren't thrilled about it. This goes for both Democrats and Republicans.

This is Romney trying to energize and solidify his Republican base and maybe grab a few independent Libertarians, rather than reaching for the Nation as a whole. The trouble is, Ryan's ideology and his voting record don't match! Articles like this are just the beginning: http://ivn.us/2012/08/11/a-closer-look-at-rep-paul-ryans-voting-record/

But like Mitt Romney, whose inconsistency, even insincerity, on the issues was epitomized by the Etch a Sketch comment his spokesman and top adviser made on live television earlier this year, Paul Ryan’s limited government rhetoric appears at odds with his big government voting record during the Bush Administration.

The Wisconsin congressman actually voted with the Bush Administration’s agenda of unprecedented federal expansion 94% of the time, and it may surprise his fiscally conservative fans to know that Paul Ryan’s voting record includes votes for the TARP bailouts, the auto bailouts, the massive Bush Medicare expansion, the unprecedented federal intrusion into public education via No Child Left Behind, the 2008 stimulus package, and the $192B 2009 stimulus package.

As the general election campaign heats up and Paul Ryan is vetted by members of his party, those of rival parties, and Independent voters, his number one asset to Mitt Romney’s campaign– his status as poster boy for limited government and unwavering, even radical, fiscal conservatism– may prove hollow. It shouldn’t be long before Democratic operatives put together an ad featuring something Paul Ryan said while asking his House colleagues to vote for the politically toxic TARP bill on the House floor:

“Madame Speaker, this bill offends my principles. But I’m going to vote for this bill in order to preserve my principles.”

The statement is oddly reminiscent of one George W. Bush made regarding the bailouts:

“I’ve abandoned free market principles to save the free market system.”

No doubt, as the November election approaches, Paul Ryan and his record will be held under a microscope like never before, and he will have some tough questions to answer. With his reputation for fiscal conservatism, questions about his TARP and stimulus votes are almost certain to be asked during interviews and any vice presidential debates. By then, Mitt Romney’s campaign and members of the Republican Party will miss the earlier days of the campaign when they were only dogged by questions of consistency for one of the candidates on their ticket.

He sounds like a perfect match for Romney- consitently shifting ground and saying one thing and doing another.
Still the VP debates should be a bit more interesting- I wonder if he will make my skin crawl as much as Palin did when she was speaking.

Just watched Ryan speech accepting the VP nomination- aside from Romneys gaffe introducing him as the 'next President' I can see why rOmnyey picked him- he's young, he speaks well (all be it almost exclusively in soundbites).
But what struck me most is this American myth he is peddling- his speak was about resotiring America to greatness, he said America was founded on an idea -"our rights come from nature and God, not government- that right, thats who we are- thats how we built this country, thats what makes us great, thats our founding"- wasn't your country set up to get away from nonelected bodies like Monarchs and Religions telling people how to live?
If this a version of American history it seems to me to be a pick and mix version.
This particular bit of rhetoric was greeted with wild cheers that then broke into that horrible chant of "U. S.A. U.S.A" that is so reminiscent of the "B.B B.B" chant of Orwells 1984.
Gives me unpleasant chills everytime I hear Americans do that.

If you are a die hard Republican I daresay this speech was exactly what you wanted to hear- but I assume he will have to do more than make these grand, but largely meaningless statements in the future and actualy say exactly what they will do.
There was nothing in this speech to give a hint what those policies might be- it was all vague grandstanding.

My favourite bit was when he asked the crowd "What do we want to be?" and they responded "Free"- I had no idea Obama had taken away all your freedoms!

Ryan can be quite articulate and rational when the strategists let him get off of the pre-scripted soundbites, though some of his ideas are kind of scary. It gives me hope that the campaign may actually be planning an intelligent debate on the issues, rather than just continuing the perpetual mudslinging.

Because the Republicans strategists have chosen at this time to fortify their right flank rather than build the center, I'd guess that they're already preparing for the possibility of a loss to Obama, with the plan of supporting their conservative majority in the House of Representatives and possibly make some inroads into the Senate.

It's really just a giant board game to these people!

[edit: Just noticed that this was my 900th post! Cool! ]

900 posts!!
Thats an excuse for my new gif thingy!!




What you say about the Republicans seem slikely enough to me. If they win all to the good, if they lose they already have a plan and a fall bakck position to work from.
A strategy of appealing to their own base seems either defeatist or a realisation they have not got the full support of traditional Republican voters.
Either they are planning for a loss or they think if they can galvanise just their own support it will be enough to win- they might be onto something with that- my impression from the outside is that there is no real appetite to change Obama for Romney, but there is little enthusasm for Obama either- he may lose by default if democratic voters just stay at home instead.
Romney might be banking on this.

Congratulations on your 900th post, David!

With candidates like Romney who are going up against an entrenched incumbent, I wonder how much consideration they give to picking potential future candidates for their VP. Sarah Palin was too toxic to touch in 2012 but Paul Ryan is already fairly well-known and if he survives media scrutiny he'll probably become a major figure in the Republican Party on the national stage.