Has American Politics Become Irrelevant?

Ahso! · Post by **Ahso!** » Thu Aug 11, 2011 6:28 pm

If you're watching tonights republican debate you'd think so.

OMFG!

Ahso! · Post by **Ahso!** » Thu Aug 11, 2011 6:31 pm

Scrat · Post by **Scrat** » Thu Aug 11, 2011 7:40 pm

No I wasn't, got a link to the highlights? My perverted sense of humor needs to be indulged.

Post by **LarsMac** » Thu Aug 11, 2011 11:06 pm

I was fortunate to have to work tonight, and missed the "debate"

gmc · Post by **gmc** » Fri Aug 12, 2011 3:27 am

Our politics are depressing at least amerixcan politics are like a Monty Python sketch and great fun to watch you are not involved. .

Accountable · Post by **Accountable** » Fri Aug 12, 2011 8:31 pm

Here's part 1:

http://www.youtube.com/user/DakotaVoice ... 3qozdttTmM

The rest is available on Youtube.

Fox News: The very best in news entertainment.

fuzzywuzzy · Post by **fuzzywuzzy** » Fri Aug 12, 2011 8:44 pm

"politics" IS irrelevant.

K.Snyder · Post by **K.Snyder** » Sat Aug 13, 2011 10:18 am

Ahso!;1364854 wrote: If you're watching tonights republican debate you'd think so.

OMFG!fuzzywuzzy;1364967 wrote: "politics" IS irrelevant.

No, just the republican party

gmc · Post by **gmc** » Sat Aug 13, 2011 11:06 am

Not trying to be funny or anything but what happens of a fundamentalist Christian becomes president. Does he serve god or the people?

In the UK it's an issue that simmers just under the surface - no one dare speak it's name. At one point catholics could not stand for parliament or hold office - the issue being who rules. If the pope is your spiritual head who do your serve first, the people or the pope in rome. On issues like abortion and sex education in the UK we prefer politicians to keep religion out of it altogether. IF GW bush had said god told him to go to war how would the american people have reacted? Compared to some of the candidates you have now he seems quite rational

Post by **LarsMac** » Sat Aug 13, 2011 12:06 pm

K.Snyder;1365041 wrote: No, just the republican party

Sorry, but the Dems are not really getting it, either.

Ahso! · Post by **Ahso!** » Sat Aug 13, 2011 12:20 pm

LarsMac;1365053 wrote: Sorry, but the Dems are not really getting it, either.Care to explain that?

Accountable · Post by **Accountable** » Sat Aug 13, 2011 12:43 pm

gmc;1365046 wrote: Not trying to be funny or anything but what happens of a fundamentalist Christian becomes president. Does he serve god or the people?

In the UK it's an issue that simmers just under the surface - no one dare speak it's name. At one point catholics could not stand for parliament or hold office - the issue being who rules. If the pope is your spiritual head who do your serve first, the people or the pope in rome. On issues like abortion and sex education in the UK we prefer politicians to keep religion out of it altogether. IF GW bush had said god told him to go to war how would the american people have reacted? Compared to some of the candidates you have now he seems quite rational
Why does no one ask the same question about party affiliation or campaign contributors?

Accountable · Post by **Accountable** » Sat Aug 13, 2011 12:46 pm

K.Snyder;1365041 wrote: [QUOTE=fuzzywuzzy;1364967]"politics" IS irrelevant. :)No, just the republican party
Maybe unpleasant, disagreeable, or any number of other adjectives, but absolutely relevant and important, no matter how unfortunate that fact may be.

Post by **LarsMac** » Sat Aug 13, 2011 12:57 pm

Politics are relevant.

The fact that so many Americans seem to disagree is why we are in the mess we are, now.

Voter turnout for the 2008 election was the highest since 1968.

Wanna guess what percentage of voting age citizens actually voted in 2008?

Ahso! · Post by **Ahso!** » Sat Aug 13, 2011 12:57 pm

Accountable;1365060 wrote: Why does no one ask the same question about party affiliation or campaign contributors?I see and hear those questions asked constantly. It's a standard question from you, isn't it?

Ahso! · Post by **Ahso!** » Sat Aug 13, 2011 1:00 pm

Accountable;1365061 wrote: Maybe unpleasant, disagreeable, or any number of other adjectives, but absolutely relevant and important, no matter how unfortunate that fact may be.The attitudes of the people running on the republican side say something different.

Accountable · Post by **Accountable** » Sat Aug 13, 2011 2:21 pm

Ahso!;1365064 wrote: I see and hear those questions asked constantly. It's a standard question from you, isn't it?

Excellent point. Standing down.

Accountable · Post by **Accountable** » Sat Aug 13, 2011 2:22 pm

Ahso!;1365065 wrote: The attitudes of the people running on the republican side say something different.

What do they say?

Ahso! · Post by **Ahso!** » Sat Aug 13, 2011 2:45 pm

Accountable;1365076 wrote: What do they say?Their attitudes say they're irrelevant and unimportant, though they'll get votes in spite of that fact.

Accountable · Post by **Accountable** » Sat Aug 13, 2011 3:37 pm

Ahso!;1365080 wrote: Their attitudes say they're irrelevant and unimportant, though they'll get votes in spite of that fact.
I got that part. I'm asking what you see them doing that brings you to that conclusion.

Ahso! · Post by **Ahso!** » Sat Aug 13, 2011 4:06 pm

Accountable;1365087 wrote: I got that part. I'm asking what you see them doing that brings you to that conclusion.I see them as ignorant members of a reactionary party. They have no concept at all of our economics and their policies are destructive, including Ron Paul's. Economics is what today's politicians had better understand, and none of the people who participated in that debate appear to have a clue.

Also, God as a political issue is no longer relevant. When they bring up God and religion they appear as Neanderthals.

Accountable · Post by **Accountable** » Sat Aug 13, 2011 7:44 pm

And you don't see the other side of The Party as just as reactionary? How are they different?

Ahso! · Post by **Ahso!** » Sat Aug 13, 2011 8:10 pm

Accountable;1365110 wrote: And you don't see the other side of The Party as just as reactionary? How are they different?Other side of the party? Ah, you're consolidating the two. No I don't.

The democratic party as a whole is on the right side of the economic issues. If you'd like to discuss something particular please offer it.

Democrats don't usually raise 'God" as a campaign issue except when responding to republican claims attacking their religious faith.

Accountable · Post by **Accountable** » Sat Aug 13, 2011 9:02 pm

Ahso!;1365112 wrote: Other side of the party? Ah, you're consolidating the two. No I don't.

The democratic party as a whole is on the right side of the economic issues. If you'd like to discuss something particular please offer it.

Democrats don't usually raise 'God" as a campaign issue except when responding to republican claims attacking their religious faith.
And "raising God" is reactionary?

I didn't hear of anyone arising God as a campaign issue in Iowa, except for the moderator's question to Bachman. Granted, I didn't watch the debate yet, but things like that usually make headlines.

gmc · Post by **gmc** » Sat Aug 13, 2011 11:01 pm

Accountable;1365060 wrote: Why does no one ask the same question about party affiliation or campaign contributors?

They do, the labour party used to be largely funded by the unions who also had a say in who was leader, that was one of the things changed under new labour sitting labour MP's choose their leader. The tories received funding from industry. Left and right have quite distinct meanings over here.

Political parties : Directgov - Government, citizens and rights

Party funding

The Political Parties, Elections and Referendums Act 2000 aims to make party funding more open. It specifies that:

parties can only accept donations of over £500 from 'permissible donors', who are individuals on the UK electoral register, registered companies incorporated in the EU which do business in the UK, registered political parties, or trade unions

all donations of over £7,500 to a political party's central organisation must be reported to the Electoral Commission on a quarterly basis, or weekly during a general election campaign

organisations or individuals who campaign but don't stand for election (like trade unions) must register with the Electoral Commission if they spend more than specific limits on campaigns. In England, the limit is £10,000. In Scotland, Wales or Northern Ireland the limit is £5,000

all donations of over £1,500 to 'accounting units', like a constituency association, must be reported to the Electoral Commission

Donations to elected representatives

Individual MPs and other people elected to office (including MEPs, members of the devolved assemblies of Wales and Northern Ireland and the Scottish Parliament, members of local authorities and the Mayor of London) are subject to similar controls on the source of donations:

MPs must record any donations made from 'permissible donors' in the House of Commons' Register of Members Interests

MPs must report any donations from anyone other than 'permissible donors' to the Electoral Commission.

other elected representatives have to report to the Electoral Commission any donations over £1,500

General election spending

Political parties are subject to a cap on campaign spending before a general election:

a party has an allowance of £30,000 for each constituency contested

alternatively, parties can spend up to £810,000 across England, £120,000 across Scotland and £60,000 across Wales if this amount is greater

The requirement to declare who is contributing and how much is fairly recent. Doesn't man big companies aren't active behind the scenes though. The recent NOTW scandal has alleviated some of the concerns about the influence a biased media can have.

Clodhopper · Post by **Clodhopper** » Sun Aug 14, 2011 3:40 am

The recent NOTW scandal has alleviated some of the concerns about the influence a biased media can have.

Just like to point out that the Lib Dem component of the govt made it certain that this issue was got out into the open. Lib Dems have been anti-Murdoch for nearly 20 years and the Tories knew if they tried to slide this one under the carpet it would bring down the government. And contacts between Cameron and Murdoch before the Milly Dowler hacking scandal strongly suggest the Tories WOULD have let Murdoch take over BSkyB completely.

Ahso! · Post by **Ahso!** » Sun Aug 14, 2011 5:06 am

Accountable;1365115 wrote: And "raising God" is reactionary?I didn't say that, you did. You're attempting to cross-contaminate my words. What I'm saying is the base of the republican party reacts emotionally which is evidenced by the consumption of extreme rhetorical misinformation put out by party loyalists like bloggers, television and radio pundits and the likes of sites such as Conservapedia.

Accountable;1365115 wrote: I didn't hear of anyone arising God as a campaign issue in Iowa, except for the moderator's question to Bachman. Granted, I didn't watch the debate yet, but things like that usually make headlines.Some of the closing statements referenced God directly, but let's not pretend to be naive by excusing the marriage references as not having religious significance.

As for the question to Michele Bachman? it was legitimate, she routinely reminds her supporters of her dedication to her religious faith and God. The question in question was a reference to a statement she made during her 2006 campaign run.

Herman Caine has made an issue of Romney's Mormonism.

And Santorum? The man is a religious zealot.

Even your guy Paul makes sure he plugs the big man upstairs when he gets the chance. Paul just says 'creator' in place of God, and that's one of his many problems with running in a party that rejects him out of hand, he refuses to, every now and then, say the actual name of God which is a requirement in Christian circles. At least Christians can imply Jesus' name in Romney's Mormonism.

Let's face it, non-christians need not apply to run as a republican.

K.Snyder · Post by **K.Snyder** » Sun Aug 14, 2011 6:48 am

What I'm optimistic about is that the Republican party has no candidate thus far that will come even remotely close to challenging Obama in next years election. Mitt Romney and Michele Bachmann!?!?!? BUHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHA!!!!!!!!!!!

Bring back Donald Trump!!!!!!!!! :yh_rotfl

Ahso! · Post by **Ahso!** » Sun Aug 14, 2011 6:56 am

The latest emotional craze among republicans is Rick Perry, who appearance wise looks, act or sounds like, at any given time, either Ronald Reagan, George W. Bush or an evangelical preacher. Never mind the rumors that Perry's policies have been decimating the state of Texas, those republican sheep will just keep voting for the guy. Just like they voted for Bush twice.

My bet at the moment is that Perry will try the Reagan impersonation first.

Accountable · Post by **Accountable** » Sun Aug 14, 2011 7:38 am

Ahso!;1365144 wrote: I didn't say that, you did. You're attempting to cross-contaminate my words.I'm trying to understand your position by using your posts. It appeared you were clarifying your first statement with the next. I'd appreciate it if you would do that, if you wish to be understood.

Ahso!;1365144 wrote: What I'm saying is the base of the republican party reacts emotionally which is evidenced by the consumption of extreme rhetorical misinformation put out by party loyalists like bloggers, television and radio pundits and the likes of sites such as Conservapedia. You don't think the entire Obama campaign was based on emotion? The guy had no record and no ideas. Only Hope and Change with no details.

Ahso!;1365144 wrote: Some of the closing statements referenced God directly, but let's not pretend to be naive by excusing the marriage references as not having religious significance.

As for the question to Michele Bachman? it was legitimate, she routinely reminds her supporters of her dedication to her religious faith and God. The question in question was a reference to a statement she made during her 2006 campaign run.

Herman Caine has made an issue of Romney's Mormonism.

And Santorum? The man is a religious zealot.

Even your guy Paul makes sure he plugs the big man upstairs when he gets the chance. Paul just says 'creator' in place of God, and that's one of his many problems with running in a party that rejects him out of hand, he refuses to, every now and then, say the actual name of God which is a requirement in Christian circles. At least Christians can imply Jesus' name in Romney's Mormonism.I agree completely.

eta: Don't forget that Caine tried to justify his bigotry against Muslims as an issue of the separation of Church & State!

Ahso!;1365144 wrote: Let's face it, non-christians need not apply to run as a republican.And the same goes for Democrats. Carter was a preacher. Clinton regularly invoked God's name, regardless of his behavior, and Obama made a big deal of having a preacher as his main mentor.

You're trying to draw distinctions where none exist.

Accountable · Post by **Accountable** » Sun Aug 14, 2011 7:44 am

Ahso!;1365155 wrote: The latest emotional craze among republicans is Rick Perry, who appearance wise looks, act or sounds like, at any given time, either Ronald Reagan, George W. Bush or an evangelical preacher. Never mind the rumors that Perry's policies have been decimating the state of Texas, those republican sheep will just keep voting for the guy. Just like they voted for Bush twice.

My bet at the moment is that Perry will try the Reagan impersonation first.Perry's scarey savvy. Everybody thought he was on the ropes the last TX gov election, but he won in a big landslide. Some call him the most politically astute person to come along in a long time. That prayer meeting he held was no accident. He does nothing without a political end in mind, imo. The guy has no ideology of his own, only to win and stay popular. Electing him would be no different from electing Obama. Status quo.

Ahso! · Post by **Ahso!** » Sun Aug 14, 2011 8:37 am

It's politics, that's how the game must be played here. However, there's a huge difference between running as an evangelical and finding methods in order to appeal to the less fundamental religious. There's a necessity involved, even Ron Paul does it.

There are non-christians in the democratic party, and at the more local level there are even individuals who are openly non-religious.

As for Obama, he had a record in law and as a consensus builder, and that was the basis of the Hope and Change Slogan and appeal. I'm not saying democrats are not emotional, I'm saying that the emotional appeal is more intellectual and less traditionally religious. For my money, give me a person who at least entertains the intellectual side of an issue. Most of the republicans running won't even recognize scientific data or listen to that segment of society. Democrats, even the least religious members do listen to and reflect on the religious segment.

Accountable · Post by **Accountable** » Sun Aug 14, 2011 12:10 pm

You're splitting hairs and equating rhetoric to behavior.

There are religious, non-religious believers, apathetic non-believers, and militant atheists on both sides.

Rationalize Obama however you wish. You won't acknowledge the truth. Hopefully a reader will.

As for the last, leave your dogmatic hyperbole at home.

gmc · Post by **gmc** » Sun Aug 14, 2011 12:32 pm

I would just like to point out that the big industrialists thought they could control Hikler and he had the backing of the church as well. Not saying anything else just pointing it out.

Ahso! · Post by **Ahso!** » Sun Aug 14, 2011 12:43 pm

Accountable;1365195 wrote: You're splitting hairs and equating rhetoric to behavior.

There are religious, non-religious believers, apathetic non-believers, and militant atheists on both sides.

Rationalize Obama however you wish. You won't acknowledge the truth. Hopefully a reader will.

As for the last, leave your dogmatic hyperbole at home.The truth is there is quite a bit of difference between democrats and republicans and you just can't stomach that fact. There are similarities too, which is all you focus on.

Accountable · Post by **Accountable** » Sun Aug 14, 2011 7:11 pm

Ahso!;1365201 wrote: The truth is there is quite a bit of difference between democrats and republicans and you just can't stomach that fact. There are similarities too, which is all you focus on.
That's because the differences are trivial in comparison. You say there are differences but you haven't pointed any out.

Post by **LarsMac** » Sun Aug 14, 2011 8:02 pm

Looks like the election got a lot more interesting with Perry's entry into the race.

He and Obama are almost polar opposites as far as their image in the public eye.

This could get to be a bumpy ride.

Accountable · Post by **Accountable** » Sun Aug 14, 2011 8:51 pm

Bush & Obama seemed really different, too.

littleCJelkton · Post by **littleCJelkton** » Sun Aug 14, 2011 9:59 pm

LarsMac;1365244 wrote: Looks like the election got a lot more interesting with Perry's entry into the race.

He and Obama are almost polar opposites as far as their image in the public eye.

This could get to be a bumpy ride.

That is Rick Perry (Parry) with an A for America Parry with an A for IowA

Ahso! · Post by **Ahso!** » Wed Sep 07, 2011 8:35 pm

Round 2 at tonight's republican debate. I noticed the candidates put the questioners on notice early and often that they weren't going to fight with each other, that they were all above that, and they remained united in hating Obama - I guess they weren't above that, were they.

Anyone have any favorite moments they'd like to share?

K.Snyder · Post by **K.Snyder** » Thu Sep 08, 2011 8:19 am

Ahso!;1368530 wrote: Round 2 at tonight's republican debate. I noticed the candidates put the questioners on notice early and often that they weren't going to fight with each other, that they were all above that, and they remained united in hating Obama - I guess they weren't above that, were they.

Anyone have any favorite moments they'd like to share?Yes, the number of times Perry stumbled and paused when attempting to give Obama praise...Freaking politicians man...

Ahso! · Post by **Ahso!** » Thu Sep 08, 2011 8:31 am

K.Snyder;1368602 wrote: Yes, the number of times Perry stumbled and paused when attempting to give Obama praise...Freaking politicians man...Other than what you point out Perry was actually pretty smooth. Perry's problem, other than the fact he revels in taking human life, is he's more liberal than any of the other candidates. Now that's not saying much, but we'll see if the republicans nominate the most liberal choice or not.

Newt is looking for either VP or Secretary Of State. My sense is that it's Newt who was behind the whole "put the media on the defensive" thing. It's poetic justice that a person such as Gingrich comes out as the wise older person on the stage. What a train wreck.

K.Snyder · Post by **K.Snyder** » Thu Sep 08, 2011 9:02 am

Ahso!;1368607 wrote: Perry's problem, other than the fact he revels in taking human life, is he's more liberal than any of the other candidates. Now that's not saying much, but we'll see if the republicans nominate the most liberal choice or not.Really? You think Perry is more liberal than Huntsman? "Huntsman says Republicans have to accept the opinion of 98 of 100 climate scientists. How many of the ten people on the stage agree on climate change? Not Perry. He says the science is not settled on this. And it would be silly, he says, to to put America’s economic future in jeopardy. Then makes an odd aside comment about Galileo, who he says, “got out-voted for a spell”

Galileo? Perry needs to keep his hillbilly mouth shut.

Ahso!;1368607 wrote:

Newt is looking for either VP or Secretary Of State. My sense is that it's Newt who was behind the whole "put the media on the defensive" thing. It's poetic justice that a person such as Gingrich comes out as the wise older person on the stage. What a train wreck.Newt's there to hype up the republican party...He's looking for nothing other than to rub elbows with the wealthy

Ahso! · Post by **Ahso!** » Fri Sep 09, 2011 7:52 am

When it comes to Rick Perry, I see a person who was once a democrat and switched parties for political expediency. Perry goes to great lengths to distance himself from liberalism in an interesting way - he voices his opinions with extreme language and terms like describing Social Security as a Ponzi scheme and the idea of Health-Care-For-All as anti American even though he supported Clinton's health-care proposal not all that long ago.

Couple all that with the fact that Perry endorsed and even actively campaigned for Al Gore in 2000 (you could not support Gore unless you shared some of his convictions regarding impending environmental problems). But now Perry says the science is still not convincing enough. Did you notice that Perry never did address Huntsman's Evolution Theory challenge, and my guess is that's because Perry secretly does recognize evolution, but he can't say that after the prayer meeting show he recently staged.

Perry is a liberal masquerading as a bible thumping conservative and doing his best Ronald Reagan style impersonation, IMV.

Would I vote for him? Hell no, he's a chickensh!t liar.

littleCJelkton · Post by **littleCJelkton** » Sat Sep 10, 2011 11:36 pm

I got a question in light of the title of this thread.

When was the last time you would say that American Politics actually was relevant?

Ahso! · Post by **Ahso!** » Fri Nov 04, 2011 3:01 am

Politics is & always has been relevant to me. If politics isn't relevant, it should be. Why? Because politics informs the national narrative which we live by.

littleCJelkton · Post by **littleCJelkton** » Fri Nov 04, 2011 3:20 pm

Ahso!;1374390 wrote: Politics is & always has been relevant to me. If politics isn't relevant, it should be. Why? Because politics informs the national narrative which we live by.

Yeah but, politics have become so convolutedly polarized, and economically corrupt that people are begining to disdain living by their national narratives. So I haven't had any relavance to politics except for the reassurance that the majority of the people who practice politics continue to over complicate it to mask the greed, and lies that are rampant throughout politics.

Accountable · Post by **Accountable** » Sat Nov 05, 2011 3:17 pm

littleCJelkton;1374466 wrote: convolutedly polarized
Oxymoron

ellieR · Post by **ellieR** » Sat Nov 05, 2011 3:31 pm

I was thinking Rick Perry sounded and looked like Ronald Reagan.

Ahso! · Post by **Ahso!** » Sat Nov 05, 2011 4:22 pm

ellieR;1374598 wrote: I was thinking Rick Perry sounded and looked like Ronald Reagan.He's got the body language down to a tee, doesn't he. That's an awful lot of time spent in front of a mirror. His other Shtick is that of a semi-flamboyant evangelical preacher in the mold of ones such as Gene Profeta or Tommy Holohan.

I think Perry's number one problem has been that when he showed up at the first debate people noticed how short he is compared to Romney and Cain, and then he wasn't as tough as he needed to be at the start. Then when Perry did try to get tough it was too late on the issues he attacked on. The question is whether or not there are enough debates left for people to become comfortable with his physical stature. But he'll need to stop being everyones whipping boy too.

Can he do it? There are a lot of very generous donors betting he can and will. I have my doubts.