US Presidential Elections 2012 (18 Viewers)

[Nzoric]

Yeah, CNN is absolutely terrible nowadays.

The worst thing that ever happened to media is 24hour coverage. It's more like a reality show than a news provider.

 

Buy on AliExpress.com

[swag]

Not for independants.

The missed opportunity is that independents are the ones who can often make or break an election. That "boring middle lot" can make entire empires crumble. If only there was a way to organize and amass that power and throw it back in the faces of the pigs at either the Democratic or Republican troughs...

 

[Nzoric]

A question for the Americans in here:

When you look at the political system you have over there, two major parties and a slim glue of independents and compare it to the "european model" - which one would you prefer? My idea of American politics might be skewed from a slight lack of in depth knowledge, but it seems that independents do have a hard time competing with the party candidates, especially considering the sums being invested in American campaigns (another point I really think someone should regulate in the states).

Which would you prefer?

 

[Enron]

The missed opportunity is that independents are the ones who can often make or break an election. That "boring middle lot" can make entire empires crumble. If only there was a way to organize and amass that power and throw it back in the faces of the pigs at either the Democratic or Republican troughs...

I agree, if they aren't going to persuade me with facts, then they ought to persuade me with free candy.

---------- Post added 04.09.2012 at 19:45 ----------

A question for the Americans in here:

When you look at the political system you have over there, two major parties and a slim glue of independents and compare it to the "european model" - which one would you prefer? My idea of American politics might be skewed from a slight lack of in depth knowledge, but it seems that independents do have a hard time competing with the party candidates, especially considering the sums being invested in American campaigns (another point I really think someone should regulate in the states).

Which would you prefer?

The current system of course.

 

[Nzoric]

Could you explain in depth why you feel one is superior to the other?

 

[Enron]

Could you explain in depth why you feel one is superior to the other?

Not right now.

 

[Martin]

A question for the Americans in here:

When you look at the political system you have over there, two major parties and a slim glue of independents and compare it to the "european model" - which one would you prefer? My idea of American politics might be skewed from a slight lack of in depth knowledge, but it seems that independents do have a hard time competing with the party candidates, especially considering the sums being invested in American campaigns (another point I really think someone should regulate in the states).

Which would you prefer?

Seems like the two parties are on course to merge into a single even more glorious one. Why do you need two anyway?

When Obams is scarcely distinguishable from Bush well.

 

[Trequartista]

Seems like the two parties are on course to merge into a single even more glorious one. Why do you need two anyway?

When Obams is scarcely distinguishable from Bush well.

Indeed. Obama is Bush 2.0, at least as far as spending, curtailing of freedom and foreign wars go.

 

[swag]

But that doesn't mean the population "is so dumb that this is the only thing they will listen to" or similar rationales. It's no secret that people are generally lazy, but they are a product of the society they live in.

It's not about being dumb. It's about being attracted to what lures you in and interests you.

It's why we have infographics -- facts are boring without some kind of visual pyrotechnics. (And that's just not me finding another convenient opportunity to lay a dig into infographics again either. )

A question for the Americans in here:

When you look at the political system you have over there, two major parties and a slim glue of independents and compare it to the "european model" - which one would you prefer? My idea of American politics might be skewed from a slight lack of in depth knowledge, but it seems that independents do have a hard time competing with the party candidates, especially considering the sums being invested in American campaigns (another point I really think someone should regulate in the states).

Which would you prefer?

I'm with Aaron. As much as it's flawed and that a two party system only differs from a dictatorship by +1 party ... watching the way politics get done in places like Italy or Greece is a cesspool of chaos by comparison. A organized cesspool seems nicer by comparison.

 

[Martin]

Indeed. Obama is Bush 2.0, at least as far as spending, curtailing of freedom and foreign wars go.

It's funny because when he became president one had this certain notion that "everything would change" in some way or another. In fact it turns out that it's a good thing he's black cause at least it makes it easier to distinguish from the other one.

The radicalism of his pigment was basically the extent of it.

 

[Maddy]

I'm with Aaron. As much as it's flawed and that a two party system only differs from a dictatorship by +1 party ... watching the way politics get done in places like Italy or Greece is a cesspool of chaos by comparison. A organized cesspool seems nicer by comparison.

But what about the scandinavian countries? We have arguably the most stable democracies in the world.

 

[swag]

It's funny because when he became president one had this certain notion that "everything would change" in some way or another. In fact it turns out that it's a good thing he's black cause at least it makes it easier to distinguish from the other one.

Everybody is the "change" candidate when you're knocking out an incumbent party. That's the Republican's card to play this time.

 

[Nzoric]

I'm with Aaron. As much as it's flawed and that a two party system only differs from a dictatorship by +1 party ... watching the way politics get done in places like Italy or Greece is a cesspool of chaos by comparison. A organized cesspool seems nicer by comparison.

I really think that Italy / Greece are the wrong examples to bring up when talking about European politics.

 

[Trequartista]

It's funny because when he became president one had this certain notion that "everything would change" in some way or another. In fact it turns out that it's a good thing he's black cause at least it makes it easier to distinguish from the other one.

The radicalism of his pigment was basically the extent of it.

Oh, yeah the infamous CHANGE slogan. What a load of bullshit that was.

It worked quite well, though.

 

[swag]

But what about the scandinavian countries? We have arguably the most stable democracies in the world.

I actually dig how Scandinavia works, even if nothing is cheap. But then you'd have a lot of people here spew out their lunch if you told them that, say, Sweden was a socialist nation.

---------- Post added 04.09.2012 at 14:54 ----------

I really think that Italy / Greece are the wrong examples to bring up when talking about European politics.

PIIGS need not apply?

 

[Trequartista]

I really think that Italy / Greece are the wrong examples to bring up when talking about European politics.

I don't like this system either, we have it in Canada and the only thing it did at the last federal election was splitting the left's vote, which enabled the conservatives to win(which was positive, though). The same is happening in Quebec now, there are just too many parties.

I'd like a genuine libertarian party, though.

 

[Nzoric]

Sweden is far from a socialist country, but then again even France under Sarkozy was a socialist country compared to the US center-leftists.

PIIGS need not apply, no

---------- Post added 04.09.2012 at 23:58 ----------

I don't like this system either, we have it in Canada and the only thing it did at the last federal election is splitting the left's vote, which enabled the conservatives to win(which was positive, though). The same is happening in Quebec now, there are just too many parties.

I'd like a genuine libertarian party, though.

Splitting the left's vote is fine if there are several leftist parties with different goals and approaches, I'm very much against streamlining politics into two camps. No matter how you look at it there's got to be more camps of opinions than two on any matter.

 

[Maddy]

I actually dig how Scandinavia works, even if nothing is cheap. But then you'd have a lot of people here spew out their lunch if you told them that, say, Sweden was a socialist nation.

Dem socialist!

I was merely thinking of the Unitary State and Parliamentary system which works very well in Scandinavia.

If it would work as well in the States, I don't know. But Bush winning in 2000 was a democratic disgrace and it wouldn't have happend in our system.

 

[Enron]

I don't like this system either, we have it in Canada and the only thing it did at the last federal election was splitting the left's vote, which enabled the conservatives to win(which was positive, though). The same is happening in Quebec now, there are just too many parties.

I'd like a genuine libertarian party, though.

A genuine libertarian would not say that.

I've had hopes of re-started the old Progressive Party.

 

[swag]

Dem socialist!

I was merely thinking of the Unitary State and Parliamentary system which works very well in Scandinavia.

If it would work as well in the States, I don't know. But Bush winning in 2000 was a democratic disgrace and it wouldn't have happend in our system.

2004 was an even bigger disgrace, really. I lost confidence that the electoral system worked or if I even belonged in this country.