US Presidential Election 2012

Thing is though it is reminiscant of religion in Europe- Europe of 2-4 hundred years ago. That's the worry. Europe has been through this, religous persecutions and intolerance. Bigotry and sexism and racial abuse under the guise of a loving God and spread through the churches into communities. I suppose it was hoped America, being an offshoot of that experience would not go and bloody well repeat it. I guess the rest of the world had hoped you might have been more, well civilised.
I've often thought our Conservatives were probably closer to the Demmocrats than the Republicans- in Europe the sort of views espoused by the Republicans is the domain of the extreme fringe right and generally roundly condemned by most and with little support.

Pettytyrant101 wrote:I suppose it was hoped America, being an offshoot of that experience would not go and bloody well repeat it. I guess the rest of the world had hoped you might have been more, well civilised.

You're right, and I've ready plenty of hypotheses and hand-wringing over why this, but I can't really explain it. I don't know how much of a problem this is in other ex-colonial countries that are primarily inhabited by people of European descent (as opposed to the original populations). There's a fair bit of idealization from leftists in America of other countries that can get in the way of objective observation.

I've often thought our Conservatives were probably closer to the Demmocrats than the Republicans- in Europe the sort of views espoused by the Republicans is the domain of the extreme fringe right and generally roundly condemned by most and with little support.

I remember when I first began paying attention to British politics around the time of the last election. My girlfriend at the time, who is from Kent, complained a lot about the Tories, but I didn't think they were as bad. Eventually I realized that was because their proposals were fairly similar to the Democrats and I'd been desensitized by living in a right-skewed system. After that I tried to figure out who the Republican's UK equivalent was but the best I could come up with is the BNP. I worry that's not fair but I'm really not sure who else. Maybe the UKIP, but I'm not as familiar with them.

UKip are more right than the Tories, bbut they are really a one policy party. And as that policy is Britain first and anti-european they attract the more unsavour elements often or those who aren't willing to go the full hog an vote BNP. But UKIP make more noise and get more press than there support at the polls warrants, the Greens do better than them and get less newspaper inches and tv time.

Ethnocentrism and xenophobia are pretty common traits in US politics, especially from neo-conservatives like Bush and Cheney (who, to be clear, are very different from traditional conservatives, although they tend to be isolationist and like most Americans buy into the "we're the greatest country in the world!" propaganda). Although there's more to them than just that, so UKIP probably isn't the best comparison.

Not really about the Presidential election, but on the matter of FOX News (the most popular cable news channel): Bill O'Reilly doesn't think that the U.S. government controls the U.S. military. His exact words are that it is not "civilian-run". I'm not sure how anyone could possibly think that since civilian control of the military is a pretty fundamental aspect of how America is structured. See the video on The Raw Story.

Just to tie this back into the election story, Rick Perry realizes that the military is run by civilians, but he wants to change this (ThinkProgress). Sometimes I worry about the amount of militarism from a certain segment of the right. That's not intended as a criticism of the military, just the idiots who think there should be no oversight. Notice that the people saying this have nothing to do with the military themselves.

Would this military which doesn't need oversight be the same military with the appalling record on prisoner treatment and even worse an appalling record of raping female members of their own army then covering it up?

Yep. I'm sure they'd like the CIA to have no oversight too (they're the perpetrators of much but not all of the worst prisoner-related abuse). I'm not sure why so many Americans seem not to care about such things. I've thought on it a bit and one of my best guesses is that a lot of people have secret authoritarian leanings, probably unconscious ones they don't see for what they are. Or, perhaps they're just bigoted; consider that most of the prisoner scandals involve Muslims and/or "brown people".

The racism reason makes sense when you hear about hate crimes against Sikhs (who wear turbans) and Muslims rising after 9/11, or about Coptic Christians (Egyptians) having to be rescued by police from an anti-Muslim protest because the American Christians there didn't realize the Copts agreed with them. On the other hand, there wasn't a huge outcry against the treatment of Bradley Manning beyond the usual anti-torture advocates either, and he's white. So I suspect it's largely an undercurrent of Ur-Fascism. Maybe a bit of both.

That's hilarious, though it seems too good to be real.

Tomorrow, 3 January, is the first of the primary elections (technically it's a caucus but that doesn't really matter) in Iowa. The rest will follow over the next several months. Unsurprisingly, the most recent poll numbers do not show any of the various 'flavor of the month' Republican front-runners leading the pack. Rather, Mitt Romney (the guy who a lot of Republicans want anyone but), Ron Paul (the guy the media seemed to be trying to ignore for as long as they could), and Rick Santorum, whose only distinction is that his name has a sexual double meaning, are the leaders according to the BBC.

I really don't see Santorum, who has failed to distinguish himself in any way, winning. Romney is a 'safe bet' and he probably has the best chance of beating Obama in the general election if he wins, so I suspect he'll pick up plenty of support because of that. Ron Paul has always had a dedicated base but has in the past (especially the 2008 election) struggled to find broader appeal. It looks like more interest is falling on him now that so many of his rivals have been disgraced, but some of his less mainstream positions, such as reforming drug laws, may alienate many Republicans. Regardless of who wins, however, it's worth noting that these early primaries are not a terribly reliable indicator of who will win the nomination come August since we're still at the tail end of the 'try out the candidates, see how you like them" phase of the election.

Nonetheless, I'm quite curious to see who wins. I'll try to post the news here quickly once its announced, unless someone beats me to it!

I've been keeping tat least half an eye at time son this- just so I am sure I know where I am- Romney is the Moromon -upsetting some more fundementalist republican parties, and he is considered a bit of a flip-flopper? Yes?
Ron Paul is the guy who will instantly start WW3 if elected President by starting a war in the ME by moving the US embassy in Israel to Jerusalem and declaring on the world stage the Palestinians aren't a real pople. Yeah?
And Rick Santorum is the one no one has ever heard of?

I think you're confusing Ron Paul and Newt Gingrich. Paul is the hardcore small-government type who doesn't want the U.S. to have the same military presence overseas that it has had since WWII. Newt Gingrich is the one who makes comments about how Palestinians are an "invented" people and stuff like that.

Otherwise I think you're spot-on.

So Romney wins Iowa- by a gnats ball hair and dark horse of the race Santorum comes a damn close second only 8 votes behind.
According to the BBC reporting New Hampshires next, (I have a burning desire to visit there- one of the places in the world I relly want to go, wonder if someone could arrange to have the Americans moved out first though!!! ) and no nominee who has won both New Hampshire and Iowa has ever lost the nomination race- not so sure about this time tough- was it ever so close in the past with no popular frontrunner?

Romney almost endeared himself to me slightly earlier when the BBC described him as disliked by Christian Evangelists and Fundementalists- so he must be doing something right!

I'm rather surprised that Santorum has managed to rally so late in the game, but I admit I haven't followed the race as closely for the past month or so with the holidays going on. On the other hand, I'm not terribly surprised to see Romney winning (even if I expected a larger margin) since so many of his opponents have failed to stand up to media scrutiny whereas Romney was already picked apart four years ago.

Iowa and New Hampshire always get to hold the first primary elections so it will be interesting to see if the candidates stay in the same rankings. NH is obviously a very different state than Iowa with different politics, and even though this is a strictly Republican race there are a number of regional variations in the parties. You raise an interesting point about frontrunners too: usually there is one (or sometimes two) candidate(s) to have distinguished themselves before the primaries begin. We haven't really seen that this election since all the front-runners, even Gingrich, who only saw poll success about six weeks ago, have faded fast.

Pettytyrant101 wrote:Romney almost endeared himself to me slightly earlier when the BBC described him as disliked by Christian Evangelists and Fundementalists- so he must be doing something right!

I think the main reason Romney is so disliked by the Christian Right in America is that he's a Mormon, and a lot of the evangelicals don't think of Mormons as real Christians. Actually, there's a fair-bit of casual anti-Mormon bigotry/phobia from many walks of American life, but for some reason it seems stronger from conservative (traditional) Christians. On the other hand, Romney is more moderate and mainstream than the Tea Party-esque candidates.

According to the BBC Michelle Bachmann has dropped out after finishing in sixth place. The only candidate lower than her was Jon Huntsman, who never had a realistic chance at all since he isn't particularly conservative. That leaves Romney, Santorum, Paul, Gingrich, and Rick Perry still in the race, although Gingrich and Perry are lagging behind at this point.

I found a great candidate for the USA!



dunno if the video worked, but there is a link there too

"how we can look round our nation of 500 million clever people and decide that only Jimmy Carter or Ronald Reagon could possible lead us?"

Makes you wonder what he thought of George Bush when he was in power then!!!

I've killed the thread, haven't I?

No Norc dont worry- this thread relies on Americans doing/saying stupid/frightening things to keep it going- oh wait hold on it should be the busy thread then!

I'm just waiting for the New Hampshire primaries. We're still in the early days of the actual election, although the pre-election campaign dragged on for so long that it doesn't feel like it. I'm sure this thread will pick up as we get closer to November and the general election.

Well we are back on track, one of them has said something stupid and devisive! Gingrich (which incidentally sounds like a nasty veneral disease) is going to address a group of Black Community leaders to tell them why the black community should demand paychecks instead of food stamps.
Quite right, as we all know those blacks like nothing more than living in poverty taking the hard working taxes off white folks and squandering it on food.

When it comes to this period in history and the madness of racism this is what the look on the futures faces will be when they study our history. (02:46)

You are very astute for one your age Eldo, a good head on your shoulders. I, in my heart don't think anything is very cut and dried on either side and I don't think either of the two parties are without stain or that great. We here in Canada vote for the person we have studied on , looked at the track record and for how long. We generally don't trust any party and look to the man or the woman that has put pedal to the metal over three years and go with that. And in some cases like the hst tax here in British Columbia, while many like the Premier, he gave many breaks to the working poor and young families, still we felt betrayed by his move to hike our taxes and even though it went thru we quietly all banded together and forced another vote and he lost and he had to resign. So to just say this guy or that woman and that team, for me at least that does not work. There is so much behind the scenes it is dismaying. When I first became an editor for a small city newspaper I had the sad duty to attend all council meetings as well as attend to every man Jack who showed up from any of the political parties for this or that. The luncheons and dinners were terribly informative and I walked away so downhearted by the coercision , the deals made the lies and how they laughed about it. It went in so many directions, I scratch you back, etc. and for so many good and deluded reasons that I quit being the editor and went free lance and still am. Because one of the times I had to report a huge deal every word was changed yet I still had the by line. I was informed our who paper was owned by the'other party' and I could not report the truth, sorry but..And they actually threatened me when I tried to anyone.
I still remember a documentary we saw on your John McCain there in the prisoner of war camp where he he was being held. His father or someone did big deals to have his son finally released, it was hell there and it showed him, so weak and crying and he refused to leave the others and stayed behind with them. I never got over that. He is a hero to me whatever his beliefs .

It's interesting that you bring up John McCain. I have respect for him for what he went through but I dislike his track record as a politician. If we were having this conversation back in 2000 I wouldn't be saying this, because he took a decent, reasonable stance on the matters of the day, even if I wouldn't have fully agreed with him. But during the 2008 election he became much more extreme in his views and he radically changed a lot of his positions so as to appear more strongly "Republican". While I have nothing against John McCain as a person, I think he sold out a lot of his beliefs and he drifted too far to the right for me to be able to consider him a reasonable choice in a presidential election. His about-face on the matter of torture, where he opposed measures that would have ended the use of torture by organizations like the CIA, was particularly disturbing to me.

I think this was partially because the Republican Party has a major problem in that both its politicians and the right-leaning media outlets (like Fox News or numerous talk radio hosts) are fond of slinging the accusation RINO, which stands for Republican In Name Only. This is used to refer to any Republican politician who does not embrace the views of the more extreme neo-conservative wing of the party that rapidly gained power in the 1980s and '90s, and more recently to those who don't agree with Tea Party-esque positions.

The strength and venom of the RINO accusation has led to an ideological self-regulation of the Republican Party which shuts down and excludes moderate members of the party and forces everyone farther to the right. Look no further than Jon Huntsman, an experience politician and diplomat with reasoned, intelligent views who was ignored by his party in favor of a parade of extremists like Michelle Bachmann and Herman Cain, who seemed to be competing with each other to see who could make the most bizarre and poorly-thought-out promises. It's no surprise that Huntsman began revising some of his "RINO-esque" views, such as his support of science.

I'm not saying that I like the Democrats either (I'm still wishing we had a real left-wing party in the U.S.), but I don't think they systematically ostracize members who don't toe a certain ideological line.

Can you speak to the accuracy of this, leelee? (It does have one instance of profanity if that bothers anyone.)

I caught Romney's winners speech after New Hampshire and to start with I was thinking, 'yeah I can see why people are voting for this guy, he seems balanced, reasonable- bit triumphant but Yanks seem to like that'- then he started outlining what he would do, slagging off europe for not being free, whatever thats supposed to mean (he does know europe is your major global ally doesn't he- has he heard of NATO?) then he gave Israel carteblanche to do as they please because they are 'America's friend' and he stands by his friends no matter what (so presumably shooting children, the indiscrimiate murder of civillians etc are all ok with him so long as they are arab children)- and then he got on to not apoligising for anything America has ever done (accusing Obama of some sort of treason for admitting things like abuse of prisoners of war and torture were wrong) and claiming that he would build up Americas military might so that no one in the world dare oppose her. (He does know warfare has changed and having a gizillion tanks might look good but wont do a blind thing against small organised groups out to create chaos and by being so belligerent he is actually encouraging such attacks?).
By the end I was in a state of despair and fear this man might actually get elected to office. God save America indeed- someone probably ought to!