The Politics Thread

[Roman]

With the problems this country was having at that time, he was worried about the name of the tree?! What a piece of work.

[Roman]

http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2011/12/08/unemployment-extension_n_1137403.html?ref=politics

I tell you.

[Max]

Romney is f***ing delusional. He's getting his a$$ kicked in the polls, but still acts like the GOP front-runner, failing to go after Gingrich (and instead aiming his firepower towards Obama).

The GOP establishment picked the wrong horse from the beginning. They should have chosen Huntsman, but somehow felt that Romney was the more conservative of the two. I'll never understand this type of thinking, given that all Huntsman did was serve as Barry's Ambassador to China, while Romney was once pro-chioce, pro-gun control, and pro-government run health care.

[DRW50]

Huntsman never even really tried to appeal to the GOP base. He did what you are criticizing Romney for. Huntsman never took a hard line on the GOP issues - abortion, hating gays, the evils of education and science, and thinking all liberals are lazy and trying to destroy America.

Romney is just tone deaf. He always has been, but the media and the elites try to cover it up. Everyone loves to go on, and on some more, about how Obama is an elitist for going on a vacation, but when Romney a) calls himself "unemployed" and b ) casually bets 10K, it's supposed to show us how real and true and wonderful he is.

Edited December 11, 2011 by CarlD2

[Max]

Huntsman has offered an economic plan that was praised as the best by the conservative "The Wall Street Journal." While we'll have to agree to disagree on this matter, economics are far more important to a lot of Republican than "hating gays" is. I believe that the media has written Huntsman off all along, in part, because they know he is Obama's worst nightmare. By making him out to be some sort of MSNBC RINO, they are making sure he will never become the nominee. (And for obvious reasons, the far right doesn't want Huntsman to be the nominee.) I am still waiting for someone to explain to me why Huntsman is more moderate/liberal than Romney.

I think that Huntsman has made a mistake by not touting his conservative credentials more. However, Huntsman has never once pandered or flip-flopped, which is in sharp contrast to what Romney constantly does.

The liberals are already celebrating the likely possiblity of a Gingrich nomination. What they fail to realize is that such an occurrence will make it ripe for an independent candidate to succeed, because swing-voters are not going to want to choose between two horrendous options.

Edited December 12, 2011 by Max

[DaytimeFan]

Just a point on the "mainstream" media.

I am not American, though I was a tax-paying resident, for 17 years, and owned property in America. Having lived in several Western countries over the course of my life I would like to make one point about the "mainstream" media in the United States.

The "mainstream" media has been bought, sold and controlled by a very, very small group of companies, companies all with one goal in mind: to make money by any means necessary. GE, News Corp, Disney and Viacom control the vast majority of the "mainstream" media. Four companies set the tone for a nation of over 300 million. Each and every media outlet is controlled and biased by a special interest, usually profit margins.

What Americans should be angry about isn't whether there is a "liberal" or "conservative" bias in the media because that's all smoke and mirrors, American political parties really have very few differences between them. The real bias Americans should be angry about is the bias that shrouds the truth in misinformation and lies in support of the corporate bottom line.

True, there is PBS, the lone voice in the "mainstream" media that isn't controlled by a corporation. That voice, however, is minuscule.

The world looks at American media and laughs at them because the ignorant infotainment that passes as news is deplorable.

American children are getting dumber and dumber. Make no mistake, that is why the economy is in the shape it is in, Americans have become too stupid to not make common sense decisions about money, lending and personal finance. They have become massive consumers because they feel entitled, entitled to shop, entitled to buy, entitled to spend, entitled to live a life they cannot afford and have not worked for.

The American media has perpetuated this for decades, most likely since the Baby-Boom of the 1950s. The American media, be it Barbara Walters, Bill O'Reilly, Matt Lauer or your local weather man in Iowa, all drinks the same Kool-Aid, what do the sponsors want? What is the bottom line? Take a look at HLN, I've never seen so much repetitive nonsense about non-news stories in my life.

The United Kingdom, Canada, France, Germany, Australia: all Western nations, all of which have a neutral, publicly funded broadcaster, all of which are far less ignorant about the world around them because awareness of the world matters.

Ignorance is what Americans should be angry about; not whether Rosie O'Donnell yelled at Elisabeth Hasselbeck.

And I say this as someone who loved my time in America but also left because I didn't like the direction the country has been heading for the last 15 years. I think Americans need to WAKE UP and get educated before the US, like the other empires before it, collapse.

[Max]

DaytimeFan, I don't agree with everything you wrote. However, you make a lot of good points, especially the following:

There's little doubt that the economy went into the s#itter because people took out loans on homes, college, etc., that they simply could not afford. (This stupidity applies not only to economic matters, but also to elections: the most charasmatic/"likeable" candidate almost always wins.) No politican will ever dare say the American people are ultimately to blame, because that would be sucidial.

The media is controlled by huge corporations (that get their financing from Wall Street), as you stated. Becasue of his, there is a huge amount of hypocrisy when MSNBC pretends to champion the OccupyWallStreet movement.

Edited December 12, 2011 by Max

[DRW50]

The media has ignored Ron Paul but he's still the third or fourth most popular candidate and has many devoted supporters.

I just don't think there was ever any real place for Huntsman. He's just out of step.

[Max]

They shouldn't have ignored Paul either. My own belief is that he was dismissed because he didn't fit the stereotype of the war-mongering Republican.

Huntsman may be out of step with today's GOP, but he represents what mainstream Americans want. That's why he would make a great independent candidate, and it should be noted that he has the personal wealth to make such a run.

[DaytimeFan]

With respect, no one can say what "mainstream Americans" want because everyone has their own biases and everyone is influenced by the media, of which I previously addressed.

[Roman]

Well, I don't personally feel he's out of step. He's ran in The Year Of The Crazy.

Very true. Very true.

[Max]

With all due respect, if the views of "mainstream Amerericans" are unknown, then the classification of extreme/"crazy" also cannot exist because there would then be no yardstick (other than personal biases) to compare those "fringe" beliefs to.

Edited December 12, 2011 by Max

[DaytimeFan]

That's actually very true, there is no yardstick in the United States because Americans have the unfortunate habit of relating their views only within the context of the United States. Ignorance to world affairs, social norms etc is extremely common in the United States and personal biases rule above rational thought.

[Max]

DaytimeFan, you deserve a lot of praise for your consistency.

[DRW50]

The barometer of what "mainstream" Americans want moves further to the right each year. Can you imagine a "liberal" media going on and on about how we should cry for the rich because the poor are stupid and lazy and worthless? Yet that's where we are.