# President Bachmann - a bad dream, or a possibility?



## chimp_spanner (Aug 30, 2011)

Okay guys...it's hard to tell from out here but how likely is it that this woman could ever become President? I mean the fact that she's even in with a chance as a Republican candidate is scary enough in itself because that implies several million people are in her corner. But thanks in equal measure to Obama's inability to assert his position, and a totally obstructionist Republican party (that never really accepted him as 'their' President), I doubt he'll get re-elected. So what are the alternatives?

I've always thought that the one thing that kept America going over the edge was that, by way of your constitution (and the benefit of hindsight/common sense) it would be impossible to have religious rule. And so there would always be this equal push/pull of religious & non religious people, doing their best to create a one-size-fits-all kind of system that at most pays lip service to Christianity and respectfully acknowledges that somewhere in your past, there is a connection to it. But no more than that.

But suddenly it's "okay" to speak openly about enforcing God's rule onto the people. Is there a particularly strong counter movement to this?

I don't mean for this to be a thread about being religious or atheist or whatever. I'm just curious, and I guess a little scared, that you guys could really go in this direction. And England being the little lapdog it is, wouldn't be far behind.

There would've been a time I couldn't have thought it possibe but people are scared and frightened enough now to fall for it. There's no money, no jobs and for some, no hope. You've gotta wonder at what point it will get so bad that people will actively seek out and vote for people claiming to offer divine solutions.

Thoughts!


----------



## Ill-Gotten James (Aug 30, 2011)

I find it really aggrivating when politics bring up religion, or God, based under a specific religion. I truely believe that there should be a clear separation between church and state. Politics and relgion do not mix well in my opinion. Who knows what the future has in store for the world. Go with the flow, but stand up for what you believe in.


----------



## Guitarman700 (Aug 30, 2011)

Not if I have any say in the matter. Bachmann and her Tea Qaeda friends are destroying this country.
There IS a counter movement, which I am part of, but it's not easy. If you could talk common sense with religious people, there would be no religious people.


----------



## Xaios (Aug 30, 2011)

This thread is quickly devolving into "let's bash religion." I'm a religious person, and I find this woman's grandstanding reprehensible as well. Fanatical religious zealots can eat it, but please folks, at least try to acknowledge that such people represent a comparatively tiny portion of the religious community. As with many things, it's simply a crazed vocal minority.


----------



## Lon (Aug 30, 2011)

she does provide the lulz though'

can we get some extreme nihilistic-wing party in here just as a troll-counter movement?


----------



## Konfyouzd (Aug 30, 2011)

Bachmann = 

That is all...


----------



## daemon barbeque (Aug 30, 2011)

Man, Raegan, Nixon, Bush and now Bachmann? You guys trying really hard to Fuck up the World with clowns LOL


----------



## AySay (Aug 30, 2011)

If America votes in a retard like this, then they fully deserve any consequences from that decision. The place seems to get more insane by the day...


----------



## chimp_spanner (Aug 30, 2011)

Xaios said:


> This thread is quickly devolving into "let's bash religion." I'm a religious person, and I find this woman's grandstanding reprehensible as well. Fanatical religious zealots can eat it, but please folks, at least try to acknowledge that such people represent a comparatively tiny portion of the religious community. As with many things, it's simply a crazed vocal minority.



Well like I said man, definitely not my intention so hopefully realness will be kept 

In any case, what's worrying is that while she is part of a crazed and vocal minority, she's also part of a very ambitious and powerful (or at least power hungry) minority. Batshit insane she may be, but she's in a position to push her views on a lot of people. And she's gotten way further than I ever thought she would when she first hit the scene. Alarm bells should be ringing!


----------



## troyguitar (Aug 30, 2011)

No fucking way she gets the nomination. She's completely unelectable in a presidential race. We're a rather right-wing country, and there are a LOT of people who would support her, but fortunately we aren't quite to the level of insanity required to choose Bachman over Obama.


----------



## ddtonfire (Aug 30, 2011)

I don't know about you guys, but I don't think it's that bad around here.

And no, she's not going to be our next president.


----------



## SilenceIsACrime (Aug 30, 2011)

chimp_spanner said:


> And she's gotten way further than I ever thought she would when she first hit the scene. Alarm bells should be ringing!


 
This 

People really *love *sensationalism though and she seems to provide it in droves....


----------



## Trembulant (Aug 30, 2011)

Well, it's not illegal to believe in God. I don't think she particularly was promoting any kind of religious iron rule or anything "scary" as you might call it. Being that it is a core aspect of Christianity to look to God for strength and wisdom, there is nothing _shocking_ here. She probably was speaking to a predominantly Christian group.

As long as it doesn't interfere with the person upholding the Constitution of the United States, it _shouldn't_ matter what their religion is or isn't. But since you have to represent everybody it can be a fine line, if not nearly impossible. Not even an Atheist can do it. But as long as it is not specifically forced upon people it shouldn't matter. Our current president claims to be Christian, as did the one before him, as have a lot of our Presidents since the founding. God is allowed in our Constitution, and God is free to be interpreted by the people in any way they see fit, or not at all. It's a core principle of our Constitution. 

The seperation of Church and state is primarily supposed to be not that our leaders aren't supposed to be religious, but that the Church should not be overbearing one way or another. Now we know that doesn't always work out, however, most religions have a lot of the same principles - like don't murder, don't steal, respect others, ect. So it doesn't really step on a lot of peoples toes unless it get's to ideals of sexuality, and personal things where then people start to get pissed, or dissed or that's when the arguments happen. The always will.

While i don't care for the religious _speech_ in politics so much, and wouldn't vote for her. It shouldn't matter if they are religious or not. As long as they respect others there isn't a problem. The have the right to speak freely, and i would say at least they are open about it. Better than someone lying and hiding something to try to gain power and then enforce their views on others,..Ahemn.

If some might consider it a problem. That makes them the exact person they would claim to be adverse to, that someone who believes in something they don't, being somehow less or unfit or "crazy".

I kind of think it funny that people who don't live here should be so interested or interject or object so much. I'd be more worried about my own country. When you think it's a haven of morality and absolute tolerance and free of all hypocrisy and bias, let us know.

I personally don't think she will be president, so i don't think you have to "worry" about her somehow inadvertently turning the UK into whatever your thinking, lol.


----------



## chimp_spanner (Aug 30, 2011)

Trembulant said:


> Well, it's not illegal to believe in God. I don't think she particularly was promoting any kind of religious iron rule or anything "scary" as you might call it. Being that it is a core aspect of Christianity to look to God for strength and wisdom, there is nothing _shocking_ here. She probably was speaking to a predominantly Christian group.
> 
> As long as it doesn't interfere with the person upholding the Constitution of the United States, it _shouldn't_ matter what their religion is or isn't. But since you have to represent everybody it can be a fine line, if not nearly impossible. Not even an Atheist can do it. But as long as it is not specifically forced upon people it shouldn't matter. Our current president claims to be Christian, as did the one before him, as have a lot of our Presidents since the founding. God is mentioned in our Constitution, and God is free to be interpreted by the people in any way they see fit, or not at all. It's a core principle of our Constitution.
> 
> ...



Maybe I picked the wrong video here - it was just the most recent. It's not scary that she believes in God (although it's downright retarded that she thinks earthquakes and storms happen because he's angry or somehow gives a shit about the economy ). It's scary because she has some real fringe influences going on, and who's to say she won't carry some of that forward into office? I start seeing words like dominionism popping up here and there and _that's_ when I get jittery. Of course maybe that's fear mongering from the other side? But there are enough recordings and quotes from her to support the fact that she's pretty old school/fire and brimstone about it all. Not sure that's the kind of person you want with their finger on the button.

And on the subject of being interested/interjecting on your politics: it's interesting, it's allowed, my dad and family are all American, and in case you haven't noticed pretty much everything you guys do impacts on us  But mainly it's just general interest.


----------



## chimp_spanner (Aug 30, 2011)

troyguitar said:


> No fucking way she gets the nomination. She's completely unelectable in a presidential race. We're a rather right-wing country, and there are a LOT of people who would support her, but fortunately we aren't quite to the level of insanity required to choose Bachman over Obama.



Do you think he could get re-elected? It seems like what little he has delivered on has ended up being pretty watered down and seeing that debt ceiling thing drag on and on only to end up with practically 100% concessions really painted him out to be kind of weak. I don't know who's in the running for the dems. Anyone good??

Hey never say never man! Sarah Palin was almost your VP!!

*Edit: not to over simplify things btw - I know it's not as simple as one guy running the show. I guess he just made some pretty big promises that in reality are really hard to achieve without the proper support.


----------



## Demiurge (Aug 30, 2011)

Eh... it's going to be Romney with the nomination. Perry seems to be the real dark horse and not Bachmann, but in the end the GOP is going to go with the most fundamentally-sound candidate. 

It will be close between Perry and Romney- both are handsome, wholesome-looking men who can talk the party talk, but Romney has more mainstream appeal. Perry is probably a little too "tent revival" religious for the average American, while Romney can maintain his religious cred as a Mormon yet can pull-off a reasonably secular look.


----------



## Mordacain (Aug 30, 2011)

AySay said:


> If America votes in a retard like this, then they fully deserve any consequences from that decision. The place seems to get more insane by the day...



When you look at the results of the last several US presidential elections you'll see there have been no landslide victories. Its all been pretty close to 50% either way with a slight majority on one side or the other.

And unfortunately a significant portion of voters in this country (U.S.) are senior citizens who can, with a general certainty, be counted on to vote for the republican candidate, whoever that may be. That's a pretty significant advantage for any republican candidate, Bachmann included.

Point is, you can't blame the entire country for the portion of it that is easily mislead or simply toes the party line.

Personally, I'd like the whole system to get changed so that whoever the runner-up in the presidential election becomes the vice-president...would add another layer in the balance of power.


----------



## bostjan (Aug 30, 2011)

I move we start a mandatory minimum IQ for congress and presidency!


----------



## troyguitar (Aug 30, 2011)

chimp_spanner said:


> Do you think he could get re-elected? It seems like what little he has delivered on has ended up being pretty watered down and seeing that debt ceiling thing drag on and on only to end up with practically 100% concessions really painted him out to be kind of weak. I don't know who's in the running for the dems. Anyone good??
> 
> Hey never say never man! Sarah Palin was almost your VP!!
> 
> *Edit: not to over simplify things btw - I know it's not as simple as one guy running the show. I guess he just made some pretty big promises that in reality are really hard to achieve without the proper support.



He's got a decent chance. Even Bush was re-elected.

Though I do see Obama as similar to Carter in many ways in that he inherited a shit situation that absolutely could not be fixed in 3-4 years no matter what. I kind of feel sorry for the guy, in a different situation he might have been able to do great things. The thing is I don't see the Republicans really putting up a strong enough candidate to beat him. You'll have people voting for Romney because he's not Obama, much like in 2004 people voted for Kerry because he's not Bush. Whether that will be good enough to win is questionable. 

I think it will be VERY close, with voter turnout really making the decision. 2008 saw a lot of people come out and vote for Obama who likely would not have voted at all in previous years. But now that he's failed to deliver on his impossible promises and many of those people have since had their lives get worse, I wouldn't be surprised to see many of them go back to not voting. How many people out there still have "Hope" for "Change" will likely determine Obama's fate.


----------



## drgamble (Aug 30, 2011)

Yeah, I bet it would all be different if she was Muslim. She wouldn't even get a nomination. The president is nothing more than a mouthpiece for his/her party. We need some truly new ideas to get us out of this fix and unfortunately both parties are only concerned with their own interests (money). The corporations really run this country and the sooner we all realize that, the better off we are. There is nothing "Christian" about being in politics because the Bible says that man will never solve man's problems.


----------



## Demiurge (Aug 30, 2011)

Mordacain said:


> And unfortunately a significant portion of voters in this country (U.S.) are senior citizens who can, with a general certainty, be counted on to vote for the republican candidate, whoever that may be. That's a pretty significant advantage for any republican candidate, Bachmann included.



It is probably true that senior citizens vote more conservative, but Republicans really need to watch what they say when talking about their spending cuts. 
When you talk about cutting spending on entitlements, Social Security and Medicare/Medicaid are often threatened to be thrown onto the cutting block, and senior citizens who depend on those programs are going to bristle. Even during the debt ceiling mess, the AARP was airing commercials with an old dude saying, "there are a lot of us and we vote- don't touch Social Security."


----------



## AySay (Aug 30, 2011)

Mordacain said:


> *Point is, you can't blame the entire country for the portion of it that is easily mislead or simply toes the party line.*



I don't agree. Obviously stereotyping a whole group for the actions of some is wrong, but when the dangerously stupid minority is time and time again allowed to spout it's idiotic nonsense, their views are going to propagate. 

I'm not advocating restricting their free speech, but rather using yours. Why is it that these people are not called out on their bullshit openly? Why doesn't the sane majority use its position to expose these fundamentalists for the bigoted idiots they are? I mean just today, I saw an ad for CNN's coverage of some Tea Party debate, talking about the growing influence etc of the TP in a positive light. Why does there always have to be this misguided sense of equality all the time? When someone is a dangerous, brainless idiot, you don't foster their stupidity, you combat it. 

I'm sure the non-Nazi Germans didn't like being associated with the Nazis, and probably said the same thing as your quote I highlighted. However, their complacency ultimately led to some of the worst events in human history.
I mean, some of you Americans might find it over the top to equate your current situation to Nazi Germany, but to me the parallels are frightening.


----------



## drgamble (Aug 30, 2011)

Demiurge said:


> It is probably true that senior citizens vote more conservative, but Republicans really need to watch what they say when talking about their spending cuts.
> When you talk about cutting spending on entitlements, Social Security and Medicare/Medicaid are often threatened to be thrown onto the cutting block, and senior citizens who depend on those programs are going to bristle. Even during the debt ceiling mess, the AARP was airing commercials with an old dude saying, "there are a lot of us and we vote- don't touch Social Security."


 

Let me remind you that the Popular vote does not actually elect the President. There have been many Presidents that won on Popular votes, but lost on Electoral votes. The Electoral College elects the President. Our forefathers, just like some religions, decided that the average person wasn't smart enough to make political decisions and leave the important decision to those "who know". America is neither a Republic or a Democracy, but a Representative Democracy. That is the official title of our government. The "smarter" people represent us, "the uneducated".


----------



## Mordacain (Aug 30, 2011)

AySay said:


> I don't agree. Obviously stereotyping a whole group for the actions of some is wrong, but when the dangerously stupid minority is time and time again allowed to spout it's idiotic nonsense, their views are going to propagate.
> 
> I'm not advocating restricting their free speech, but rather using yours. Why is it that these people are not called out on their bullshit openly? Why doesn't the sane majority use its position to expose these fundamentalists for the bigoted idiots they are? I mean just today, I saw an ad for CNN's coverage of some Tea Party debate, talking about the growing influence etc of the TP in a positive light. Why does there always have to be this misguided sense of equality all the time? When someone is a dangerous, brainless idiot, you don't foster their stupidity, you combat it.
> 
> ...



Well, I've attended rallies, participated in debates, volunteered locally and gone pretty far out of my way personally in the last 3 elections. I know many people who do the same, however I am one person. I do what I can but I hold no illusions that I can change things all by my lonesome. 

Your example is ludicrous; there was a dogged anti-Nazi movement in Germany that was mostly crushed early in Hitler's reign (German resistance - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia for the quick and dirty overview). You act as though because a majority wins, that no-one fought tooth and nail to prevent it and that's just not the case. 

Ultimately, you'll be struggling against an impoverished, defeated people that are brain-addled by propaganda and charismatic leaders telling them what to think. Those people will want the easy solution, not the right one. That's how humanity works, and it has nothing to do with your nationality, race or creed it has to do with the fact we all share a universal genetic legacy and consequently similar thought patterns and similar life experiences.


----------



## Trembulant (Aug 30, 2011)

chimp_spanner said:


> Maybe I picked the wrong video here - it was just the most recent. It's not scary that she believes in God (although it's downright retarded that she thinks earthquakes and storms happen because he's angry or somehow gives a shit about the economy ). It's scary because she has some real fringe influences going on, and who's to say she won't carry some of that forward into office? I start seeing words like dominionism popping up here and there and _that's_ when I get jittery. Of course maybe that's fear mongering from the other side? But there are enough recordings and quotes from her to support the fact that she's pretty old school/fire and brimstone about it all. Not sure that's the kind of person you want with their finger on the button.
> 
> And on the subject of being interested/interjecting on your politics: it's interesting, it's allowed, my dad and family are all American, and in case you haven't noticed pretty much everything you guys do impacts on us  But mainly it's just general interest.




It's all cool. I just don't _typically_ interject on others foreign affairs.
I have opinions about other countries and their ideals yes but ultimately it's up to them to work them out for themselves. 
We have a lot of that in this world, and it seems to just piss the "other" people off, maybe rightly so i suppose.

I was just responding to the affect that someone being religious or not _shouldn't_ matter, i'm not directly opposed to it weather they are a Christian or a Satanists or an Atheist. And yes once someone seems to be a extremist then a cause for alarm is warranted. Afraid it wasn't for Bush or Obama though, and as peoples views leaned before and now towards that belief. It's all up to peoples interpretation either way. 

But for a Christian to say something like that is not out of the ordinary.
And i don't have reservation on someone being a Christian "having their finger on the button" no, why should anybody? On what basis?
It's insinuating that they would somehow be more prone to pushing it?
I don't think that's a correct assumption. Each person is individual.

But like i said, i wouldn't vote for her, but don't think she would be any worse than Obama. The reason behind that is because i agree more with her political stance in some regards if she does indeed believe and support them, and i don't feel the same with Obama in as much.

In that race, i'd probably just throw up my arms and say fuck it. 
There's only one person i care to support in the next election, if they ain't it then i think it's all for naught anyway.


----------



## Trembulant (Aug 30, 2011)

troyguitar said:


> He's got a decent chance. Even Bush was re-elected.
> 
> Though I do see Obama as similar to Carter in many ways in that he inherited a shit situation that absolutely could not be fixed in 3-4 years no matter what. I kind of feel sorry for the guy, in a different situation he might have been able to do great things. The thing is I don't see the Republicans really putting up a strong enough candidate to beat him. You'll have people voting for Romney because he's not Obama, much like in 2004 people voted for Kerry because he's not Bush. Whether that will be good enough to win is questionable.
> 
> I think it will be VERY close, with voter turnout really making the decision. 2008 saw a lot of people come out and vote for Obama who likely would not have voted at all in previous years. But now that he's failed to deliver on his impossible promises and many of those people have since had their lives get worse, I wouldn't be surprised to see many of them go back to not voting. How many people out there still have "Hope" for "Change" will likely determine Obama's fate.




He could have done great things and still could, however his ideals are flawed, and he's not what he seems, so he won't. He's broken most of the promises he made, Nafta, Guantanamo, The Wars, his message is negative 
hiding behind hope - that is up to each persons perception But oh well. I think he's Wall Street Through and Through, and most of the things he acts like he rallies against are for political power, and control if you look into it. Not for the smaller guy Wall Street but for the Big Players, and the Biggest Banks, gobbling up all the smaller banks ect, consuming all they can for power. Money = power and total influence over the masses and what the think read and hear.

The economy _could_ absolutely be ok and getting better Right Now, no matter what he "inherited". It's not really "him" that inherited it anyway, 
it's the American people. A problem which was made by both parties in Government before him, which btw he was also in that Government. 
And the fact that it's not.. Myself I think it's on purpose, and if that's not the case then it's just sheer an utter stupidity on all their parts and then that has to go either way.


----------



## drgamble (Aug 30, 2011)

All of these speeches are planned and rehearsed. Professional writers write speeches to touch on certain subjects. The language is reviewed again, again to get the "message" to the people that need to hear the "message". Political speeches are exactly like pop music. The people that we "hear" are telling us stories that someone else wrote. They need a "medium"'to deliver their message. America is the best at finding a politician to "deliver the message" to the people. We elect presidents on rhetoric without knowing where the rhetoric is actually coming from. Those that love pop music could care less that their favorite artist has a team full of marketers, accountants, video, audio, songwriters, producers, choreographers, publists, agents, representatives, lawyers, the list goes on to present an image a product for the masses.


----------



## vampiregenocide (Aug 30, 2011)

I don't have an issue with any politician being religious, US or UK, but the context in which she was expressing her beliefs is questionable. You do not put down natural disasters in your country as acts of God. What about Katrina? I don't think it is polite to imply that the deaths and disasters brought about by natural processes are in fact the will of your God. That's not the sort of thing I would want a politician saying. Fair enough if you want to express the fact you are religious then by all means do so, but remember that a large percentage of the people you will represent in office will not have the same beliefs as you and so you need to have an open mind. 

That said, Bachmann is a complete bellend. She's been called out on being completely homophobic and close-minded many times and refuses to even answer to her idiocy. She has numerous ties to anti-gay groups.


----------



## Grand Moff Tim (Aug 30, 2011)

AySay said:


> I mean, some of you Americans might find it over the top to equate your current situation to Nazi Germany


 
Not just over the top, I find it outright offensive.


----------



## drgamble (Aug 30, 2011)

Catholic=Republican it's taught from early on.


----------



## Guitarman700 (Aug 30, 2011)

Anyone like her wining the next election will simply expedite my move overseas.


----------



## PeteyG (Aug 31, 2011)

vampiregenocide said:


> What about Katrina? I don't think it is polite to imply that the deaths and disasters brought about by natural processes are in fact the will of your God. That's not the sort of thing I would want a politician saying.



Here is my issue with deeply religious politicians (and by that I mean politicians of any of the judaically based religions), the idea that natural disasters are messages from god are another way of telling us that we as a species often deserve punishment, and that then it's up to however you interpret the death and destruction as to what we're being punished for. 

My fear about Bachmann is entirely based upon her religion and many of her religiously based views which, as Ross pointed out, she is masking and hiding. How many of these things are going to be pulled out of the woodwork if she gets into power? She's already been talking about banning all porn, for really fucking stupid reasons, it's not too far a leap to think that if she were to get into power she might push for far worse and restrictive laws to be passed.

It is the job of the leader of a country to act in the best interest of the country as a whole with the best information they have. If the best information they are getting about the way the world should be is from a 2000 - 6000 year old book/ideology which doesn't adapt and change (at least nowhere near as well as it needs to) with the development of society.


----------



## K3V1N SHR3DZ (Aug 31, 2011)

The GOP is playing it for the long term and purposefully running crazies and softballing it to Obeezy so they can run against him in the next 3 elections (2012, 2014, & 2016).
The real game here is stocking Congress with as large a majority as possible. They own one house now, but to do anything really radical (like under Bush II) they need Both houses, a sufficiently cowed (or complicit) minority party, and a Supreme Court majority. 

If they softball Obama with a loon in 2012, but still run TeaParty-esque candidates on the libertarian platform, they can pick up quite a few house or senate seats. 
2014 will largely be a repeat of 2010 (surely one of the most infuriating elections for those of us who occupy reality).
2016 should see a House and Senate chocked full of Right Wing hard liners, a Supreme Court with a few token "liberals" (who as members of the upper class, are no threat to the Corporo-Fascist system), and most importantly a population dumbed-down by a pathetic education system, robbed of critical thinking skills, and raised on Corporo-Fascist propaganda for the last 50 years.

Meanwhile, all along Democrats are complicit but offering token resistance. They still take money from the Fortune 50, and will continue to bow to the will of their corporate masters.


----------



## Nimgoble (Aug 31, 2011)

This woman scares me. I really don't want to live under a theocracy and everything she's said leads me to believe that she would try to mold our country in to "God's Country". I'm not sure what her chances of getting elected are, to be honest.


----------



## daemon barbeque (Aug 31, 2011)

The issue is not those candidates, but Voters. So many people voted for Bush; twice; why not vote for her? He was talking about Katrina the same way. He even didn't really care for the people who lost their lives, families, properties, everything. 
These nutjobs see only "their kind of people" as Americans. Everyone else should STFU or GTFO. And we call it democracy.


----------



## K3V1N SHR3DZ (Aug 31, 2011)

Nimgoble said:


> This woman scares me. I really don't want to live under a theocracy and everything she's said leads me to believe that she would try to mold our country in to "God's Country". I'm not sure what her chances of getting elected are, to be honest.



Read a book called Republican Gomorrah by Max Blumenthal. It gives a great entry-level history of the religious right in America. Bottom line, there is a small but very rabid minority of christian fundamentalists who are hungry for a Theocratic Fascist state. The Corporate Oligarchy figured out in the late 70s/early 80s that if they pander to this group, and promise results in a few areas, the group would consistently turn out votes. What this means is that by constantly beating the abortion drum, or the gay marriage drum (just the latest form of that old conservative ploy "fear of the other"), they can get a decent sized block of voters to turn out and vote for them (against their own Economic best interest). The class war agenda they then enact is actually starting to be incorporated by the religious folks in the form of Copeland et al.

Let's be frank: without those wedge issues, the vast majority of middle, working, or lower class people would never vote GOP, as GOP has always waged WAR on those classes.


----------



## synrgy (Aug 31, 2011)

I've said it before:

If there's any justice, the GOP's 2012 ticket will be Bachmann/Palin, and we can all laugh them into oblivion as they lose by the largest margin in recorded history.

Bachmann has support, sure, but I don't believe she has anywhere even _remotely_ close to a majority. Fringe is fringe, no matter how prominent its voice in the media.


----------



## damigu (Aug 31, 2011)

bachmann is worse than palin. palin is stupid and self important. she would be ineffectual in office. but bachmann is a self righteous, ignorant bigot--she could actually be dangerous to the country.

it seems to me that the republican party is just desperate to find a woman candidate in a weak attempt to show that they believe in equality. that's the only reason palin was on the ticket.

i doubt she has a legitimate shot at the presidency. but if she does get elected, i'm leaving the country.


----------



## pink freud (Aug 31, 2011)

The nearness of an election is directly proportional to an increase in how retarded Americans become.

The last presidential election is what started my venture into "no TV." So far this election season is just reinforcing that decision.


----------



## chronocide (Aug 31, 2011)

pink freud said:


> The nearness of an election is directly proportional to an increase in how retarded Americans become.



And sadly your staggered senatorial elections, along with the presidential and representative elections. You've got them near constantly.

I find it quite baffling why anyone ever thought such regular elections would do anything other than make almost every level of government ineffectual. It's mental to have a such large proportions of your government constantly running for office.


----------



## K3V1N SHR3DZ (Aug 31, 2011)

pink freud said:


> The nearness of an election is directly proportional to an increase in how retarded Americans become.
> 
> The last presidential election is what started my venture into "no TV." So far this election season is just reinforcing that decision.



After a while, you watch it for comedic value... 
How crazy will it get? 
With what new amazing display of "failure" and breathtaking inanity will the "other side" pull us ever so slightly back to "center"? 
Will some puckish young journalist (or layperson) get the mic and ask a REAL FUCKING QUESTION? 
How long will that question take to get lost in the echo chamber (if it ever even enters it)?



chronocide said:


> And sadly your staggered senatorial elections, along with the presidential and representative elections. You've got them near constantly.
> 
> I find it quite baffling why anyone ever thought such regular elections would do anything other than make almost every level of government ineffectual. It's mental to have a such large proportions of your government constantly running for office.



I'm gonna say it's supposed to make sweeping change difficult in favor of incremental change and/or broader consensus. Partly to preserve the power structure, and to provide stability against wild fluctuations in the whims of the public....


----------



## chronocide (Aug 31, 2011)

But unfortunately means at any one time huge swathes of the government are campaigning rather than working, especially with the long, long election campaigns they run.

I understand the staggered terms and tiers of government are intended to safeguard against extremism or sudden shifts but in practice I fear they just keep things trundling along ineffectually. I mean it's a worry when presidents oft spend half their term getting called lame ducks...


----------



## synrgy (Aug 31, 2011)

at the extremely tidy mod-edit that added the banner to my post.


----------



## Origin (Aug 31, 2011)

Church and state need to be separate. No exceptions, no excuses. If someone like that got elected AND used that crap as a political platform it'd be a terrible blow to the constitution and an egregious affront to the very foundations of freedom. I know I'm Canadian so I can't bitch as much, but holy SHIT I hope those idiots never get in. Obama really needs to be a little more firm from what I've read up on so far, he's even bending over for Harper and enough people detest that asshole that he could easily defy him.


----------



## gunshow86de (Aug 31, 2011)

Maybe she'll declare Christianity the state religion. Then we'll be able to mirror the fall of Rome even more closely. 

Wait, that made me sad.


----------



## TRENCHLORD (Aug 31, 2011)

She is kinda hot for her age. Seems to politacally polished for me, but 99% of politicians do. Now that we've done about all the apologising we can, lets just elect a woman to demonstrate to the rest of the innocent world that we are as "fair, loving and accepting" as they are (yeah I'm being sarcastic).

So who's it gonna be people? Michy B. or mamma grizzly. Maybe Hillary could jump in Independant. Billy C. could have one helluva good time with momma on the road constantly. Oh wait, he's got that bad heart now so the viagra is out of the question.


----------



## technomancer (Aug 31, 2011)

Religious fundamentalists: scary regardless of WHICH religion it is


----------



## That_One_Person (Aug 31, 2011)

I think she cares for our country, but if this all the Republicans have, then I believe we have to look foward to 4 years of mo'bama.


----------



## TRENCHLORD (Aug 31, 2011)

That_One_Person said:


> I think she cares for our country, but if this all the Republicans have, then I believe we have to look foward to 4 years of mo'bama.


 

Fortunatly it isn't. I'm making my prediction right now. ROMNEY by a ingrown butthair.

It'll be super close on the republican nomination, between the cowboy(perry) and the bussinessman. If Perry gets it, then I agree we'll have 4more of the slicktalker. yeah I know, they're all slick talkers.


----------



## vampiregenocide (Sep 1, 2011)

That_One_Person said:


> I think she cares for our country, but if this all the Republicans have, then I believe we have to look foward to 4 years of mo'bama.



She cares for what she believes your country should be, which means if you're homosexual or not a Christian then you're not part of it.


----------



## That_One_Person (Sep 1, 2011)

Well I was regarding in the manner of wishing success as a nation. She seems to be going the way of Palin, except the media doesn't have to hasten that. She is doing it on her own!

Edit: Forget that I even bothered. I make one non-hateful comment, and get neg repped as if I was some super right wing religion + gay hater. This section is definately not for me I guess.


----------



## Hemi-Powered Drone (Sep 1, 2011)

She said she wants to drill into the Everglades for oil. Not only do I strongly disagree with that from an environmentalist and Floridian stand point, I must also point out that the Everglades has no oil. There may be some natural gas, and there's a whole bunch of moist peat, but no oil. They tried looking for oil in the 50s, I believe, and they found there wasn't any. I know because I've stood on the remains of one of the old drilling platforms. 

There's a few other things, some related to Florida, that I also have problems, but that's one of the big things not relating to LGBT or religion. She's a moron, plain and simple, and I'd hate to start seeing Bachmman/Rubio (As Florida senator Marco Rubio is a candidate for her running mate) signs and bumper stickers all over.


----------



## decypher (Sep 1, 2011)

she's obviously an uneducated and complete idiot, I think she's being hyped (and abused) because of that and the fact that the US don't really have a great reputation worldwide right now, I follow German, English and Canadian news sites and it's kind of hilarious, so she's feeding a lot with her dumbness - which also leads to the fact that you get the impression of her being all over the place. in the end, she'll (hopefully) just end up... nowhere.

As far as it goes about "foreign affairs" - as long as there is a country that proclaims itself as "god's country" - I'm scared and want it to be observed. There is no room for religious fundamentalism.


----------



## Ryan-ZenGtr- (Sep 2, 2011)

I just thought I'd mention it:

Ron Paul

*ahem'*

He's one of the few politicians globally that I can withstand. What's the concensus round here, seeing as he's meant to be responsible for the Tea Party, then left when it got infiltrated by special interests, if I recall correctly.

Bachmann and co are certainly keeping Jon Stewart's Daily Show entertaining, that's a positive.


----------



## Guitarman700 (Sep 2, 2011)

Ryan-ZenGtr- said:


> I just thought I'd mention it:
> 
> Ron Paul
> 
> ...



As bad as the rest of them, In my opinion. And potentially a closet racist.


----------



## Hemi-Powered Drone (Sep 2, 2011)

The only reason that makes Ron Paul preferable to all the other Republican canidates is that he's against the war for financial reasons.

At least he can think rationally.


----------



## PeteyG (Sep 2, 2011)

dragonblade629 said:


> At least he can think rationally.



Opposes gay marriage, and the right of gays to adopt.
Doesn't believe in the separation of church and state.
Against a woman's right to choose.

Just a few of the guys values, so I'm not sure that his rationale is entirely sound.


----------



## Hemi-Powered Drone (Sep 2, 2011)

I didn't say he's always rational.  

He, like all of the other Republican canidates(and idiots like Perry and Palin who act like they haven't made a decison) is a total nutcase.

I just wish there was a better democratic canidate, Obama is a pussy. He speaks of compromise but lets the Republicans get almost all they want.


----------



## gunshow86de (Sep 2, 2011)

PeteyG said:


> Opposes gay marriage, and the right of gays to adopt.
> Doesn't believe in the separation of church and state.
> Against a woman's right to choose.
> 
> Just a few of the guys values, so I'm not sure that his rationale is entirely sound.



It's important to note that, while he certainly does hold those opinions, he doesn't believe in forcing his values on other people. 

For example;

He voted in favor of the Defense of Marriage Act because he is a huge state's rights proponent. He didn't want the federal government to _force_ states to recognize gay marriage.



> He says that in a best case scenario, governments would enforce contracts and grant divorces but otherwise have no say in marriage.[194] Paul has also stated he doesn't want to interfere in the free association of two individuals in a social, sexual, and religious sense.[195][196] Additionally, when asked if he was supportive of gay marriage Paul responded "I am supportive of all voluntary associations and people can call it whatever they want."[195]


Political positions of Ron Paul - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia (yeah yeah, Wikipedia, take it with a grain of salt)

I certainly don't side with him on most social issues, but, if I do vote for Paul, it would be for (what I feel are) his rational economic policies. Sadly, I feel like social issues may have to take a back seat to some emergency economic measures, at least for the next few years. Also, as little faith as I have in this legislature, I don't foresee the dissolution of church/state separation or the outlawing of abortion (on a national scale) in 2012 and beyond.


----------



## synrgy (Sep 2, 2011)

Ron Paul:

http://www.dailykos.com/story/2011/...EAL-RON-PAUL-(with-a-cameo-from-his-offspring)


----------



## gunshow86de (Sep 2, 2011)

^

Daily KOS is strictly a liberal website. I do like that they at least have the balls to admit their bias.

From their FAQ:


> This is a Democratic blog, a partisan blog.



There are tons of "quotes," like those in the article, that are attributed to Ron Paul, but nobody has actual proof of him saying that.


----------



## synrgy (Sep 2, 2011)

gunshow86de said:


> but nobody has actual proof of him saying that.



Excuse me, but I call 'bull shit'.

This isn't just the usual op-ed piece. There are several sources referenced throughout, and links provided at the bottom of the article. Thanks for playing, though.


----------



## PeteyG (Sep 2, 2011)

gunshow86de said:


> It's important to note that, while he certainly does hold those opinions, he doesn't believe in forcing his values on other people.
> 
> For example;
> 
> ...



Yeah that's fine and everything, but even if you don't plan on pushing your views on others, your views ABSOLUTELY influence your decisions, and since a great many of his views and opinions are so very very shitty (in my opinion) I really don't think he is worth voting for.

Not that I get a say, I'm a brit.


----------



## gunshow86de (Sep 2, 2011)

PeteyG said:


> Yeah that's fine and everything, but even if you don't plan on pushing your views on others, your views ABSOLUTELY influence your decisions, and since a great many of his views and opinions are so very very shitty (in my opinion) I really don't think he is worth voting for.



I understand where you're coming from, unfortunately there are only so many voting choices. I'm certainly not "in love" with him like so many are. I just feel that if I have to choose between Bachmann, Perry, Romney, Paul or Obama (which it's looking like it has to be one of them), I'd choose Paul for his defense of state's rights and his realist economic views.

I have (personally) abandoned the idea of voting based on ideology. I plan to vote on who has the most sound economic ideas. To me, that's the most pressing issue for the foreseeable future.


----------



## gunshow86de (Sep 2, 2011)

synrgy said:


> Excuse me, but I call 'bull shit'.
> 
> This isn't just the usual op-ed piece. There are several sources referenced throughout, and links provided at the bottom of the article. Thanks for playing, though.



I'm willing to re-read and check the sources when I'm off work.

I'm always down to play.


----------



## vampiregenocide (Sep 2, 2011)

America really puts into perspective how lucky we are over here politically.  I mean sure our politicians are douchebags, but American politicians...holy fuck. You could go down to a swamp and come back with something not nearly as slimey as some of the fuckers you have to chose from.


----------



## Explorer (Sep 3, 2011)

PeteyG said:


> Opposes gay marriage, and the right of gays to adopt.





gunshow86de said:


> It's important to note that, while he certainly does hold those opinions, he doesn't believe in forcing his values on other people.
> 
> For example;
> 
> He voted in favor of the Defense of Marriage Act because he is a huge state's rights proponent. He didn't want the federal government to force states to recognize gay marriage.



Hmm. According to Ron Paul...



> If I were in Congress in 1996, I would have voted for the Defense of Marriage Act, which used Congress's constitutional authority to define what official state documents other states have to recognize under the Full Faith and Credit Clause, to ensure that no state would be forced to recognize a same sex marriage license issued in another state. This Congress, I was an original cosponsor of the Marriage Protection Act, HR 3313, that removes challenges to the Defense of Marriage Act from federal courts' jurisdiction. If I were a member of the Texas legislature, I would do all I could to oppose any attempt by rogue judges to impose a new definition of marriage on the people of my state.



...he didn't vote for it, because he wasn't in Congress at the time. 

However... he is obviously upset at rogue judges who might rule in favor of civil rights over state rights. It's frightening to apply his same arguments to court rulings in which "rogue judges" allowed "negroes" to marry whites in Texas, when the Texan anti-miscegenation laws were invalidated in 1967. Oh, the poor states, to have their rights violated by two consenting adults wanting to marry!

Sorry, but putting the rights of the state government over the rights of consenting adults sounds like it's about imposing one's views, rather than sincerely caring about liberty of the citizens....


----------



## vampiregenocide (Sep 3, 2011)

So let's just say I'm an American homosexual, is there anyone I could actually vote for?


----------



## Waelstrum (Sep 3, 2011)

vampiregenocide said:


> So let's just say I'm an American homosexual, is there anyone I could actually vote for?



You're an American homosexual, you'll get what your given.


----------



## vampiregenocide (Sep 3, 2011)

Waelstrum said:


> You're an American homosexual, you'll get what your given.


----------



## Explorer (Sep 3, 2011)

I'm not sure why the yardstick used to measure politicians is so subjective.

I'd say that Barack Obama has done more for gay rights than any of the conservative candidates. It's interesting to read and hear critiques of Obama in the press, with barely a word said about people who are far more anti-gay. There's a few in the press who are even handed, but it's similar to hearing about how terrible Al Gore was regarding environmentalism, while so many politicians on the other side were never given such scrutiny.

Obama has the unenviable job of navigating the labyrinth of the law, getting things done while following the rules of how to get them done. Contrast Obama's approach of following that letter of the law, and compare it to George W. Bush's end run against laws using Presidential signings, in which he declared Constitutionally passed laws to be null and void. 

You know how the Tea Party supporters expected everything to change as they wished immediately upon Tea Party members entering office? It didn't happen because there are political realities, and one has to work slowly in order to get things done according to the rules.

You know how gay rights supporters expected everything to change as they wished immediately upon Barack Obama entering office? It didn't happen because there are political realities, and one has to work slowly in order to get things done according to the rules.


----------



## JamesM (Sep 3, 2011)

Bachmann will never take office, don't worry about it.


----------



## daemon barbeque (Sep 3, 2011)

The Armada said:


> Bachmann will never take office, don't worry about it.



Why? You plan to "bond" her on your bed?


----------



## JamesM (Sep 3, 2011)

I don't expect you to take my word for it, but I'd probably wager everything I own on that.


----------



## daemon barbeque (Sep 3, 2011)

The Armada said:


> I don't expect you to take my word for it, but I'd probably wager everything I own on that.



Your country would be forever in debt for your Services!!!


----------



## MikeH (Sep 3, 2011)

I hope she falls on a knife 46 times. I have friends in Canada. If she wins, I'm moving. Seriously.


----------



## wlfers (Sep 4, 2011)

Not sure if its already been brought up in this thread, but are you guys as fucking astonished as I am at perry's "ideas" dealing with abortion?


----------



## Ryan-ZenGtr- (Sep 4, 2011)

Why is everyone so keyed up about gay marriage and abortion?

There are more pressing concerns right now in the world... *sigh*

Get those things legalised so those affected can go about their business in privacy and everyone else can go back to ignoring them again, as it was 100 years ago. These are not new behaviours.

As the Global economy is collapses again, Ron Paul seems to me as a European, to be an interesting candidate. In comparison to the venomous rhetoric of his peers, Paul seems to be alone in engaging questions and affirming his pledge to uphold the constitution.

There's plenty of high light comparison clips of Paul Vs. all comers / all topics on YouTube, it's quite amusing to watch a senior man defeating younger people in debate with good sense. Also, he has been media blacklisted, which has been proved.

If your interested in politics I suggest you search online and see what you find, surprisingly there's plenty of humour, unlike the grim oratory of some of the others, such as Bachmann's evangelical craving for Revelations final chapter.... 

I won't be back defending anyone here BTW.


----------



## Nimgoble (Sep 5, 2011)

Ryan-ZenGtr- said:


> Why is everyone so keyed up about gay marriage and abortion?
> 
> There are more pressing concerns right now in the world... *sigh*
> 
> Get those things legalised so those affected can go about their business in privacy and everyone else can go back to ignoring them again, as it was 100 years ago. These are not new behaviours.



Because...there is a portion of our population that don't have equal rights and some of us find that to be a big deal? Also, I don't think that homosexuals were really "ignored" 100 years ago... More like "persecuted". Persecuted for the gender of the consenting adults they have sex with...

But hey, maybe I'm just crazy...


----------



## Ryan-ZenGtr- (Sep 6, 2011)

@Nimgoble

I agree with your sentiment. I categorise sexuality and birth preferences to be personal and private matters, with which no person should be involved other than those directly concerned and their council.

Government should take no action against private life. Hopefully enlightenment will dawn on them eventually... 

Hence, move on!

The English government has plenty of homosexuals in important positions, perhaps 10 or so of 400 members, maybe more I don't follow such things.

The problem with homosexuality and abortion is they damage the family unit, lower the birth rate and are essentially population control measures, hence the rise of prominent homosexuality on television and the media to desensitise the audience to what once was abomination, due to the lack of progeny. Being aware of that in no way prevents me from respecting choice, privacy and freedom of the pursuit of happiness for all.

I read about a group in the NY Times called Stonewall pursuing gay rights in US politics. Perhaps you would like to research or support them?

------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

Right now fiscal responsibility is the first priority in any candidate, personal liberties will come if there is still anything left to fix later... 

On Ron Paul Media Blackout

Jon Stewart's Daily Show
mediaite

Media admit "In business of kicking candidates out of races..."
Establishment Media Admits Ron Paul Conspiracy: &#8220;We Are In the Business Of Kicking Candidates Out Of Races&#8221; :

Many are suggesting Ron Paul is a Freemason and/or Jesuit and is a shill, offering reason and logic now only to gain power and follow orders later. But his brand of propaganda, if you were to take this opinion, seems more coherent to me in comparison to his competitors.

I just wanted to bring this stuff to the attention of American citizens. How you vote will affect the planet, this time round especially so.

study_confirms_that_fox_news_makes_you_stupid:
Study Confirms That Fox News Makes You Stupid | | AlterNet



Hence why Murdoch (who owns Fox) was in English courts!

Some of the most important things which need to be done, such as auditing the federal reserve who have syphoned off the American people's gold for almost 100 years (1% a year payment in gold for services rendered, contract ends in 2013 and will not be renewed as nothing left to pay with) and personal investments in silver need to be made. Repealing the Secret Services orders to class liberty dollars and other precious metal coins as contraband need to be ordered, as JP morgan have shorted more silver than they can afford. Ending war for oil and destabilising sovereign nations with the use of paid and trained insurgent armies. 

Who knew Seal Team 6's chinook crashed in Afghanistan, with 2 survivors? They are the ones credited with the assassination of Osama.

Ron Paul seems to be saying he will end these things. Take a look and judge for yourself.


Lot's of interesting things going on right now, it's a great time to be alive.


----------



## Hemi-Powered Drone (Sep 6, 2011)

I don't know how to feel about the first part of your post. You were both rational, or as the media seems to refer to as liberal, and obscenely bigoted, what seems to be the medias definition of conservatives, at the same time. 

This is really perplexing...


----------



## Sicarius (Sep 6, 2011)

If she or Palin become elected, can we start an "Adopt an American" thing?

I'd be a nice Texan UKer.


----------



## Pooluke41 (Sep 6, 2011)

Sicarius said:


> If she or Palin become elected, can we start an "Adopt an American" thing?
> 
> I'd be a nice Texan UKer.




If that happens I'd adopt all the best guitarists and steal their bile and make the guitar elixir,


----------



## Ryan-ZenGtr- (Sep 9, 2011)

^^
Yeah sorry to confuse everybody with my version of gay rights; essentially, relationships = private, so let people be. Private life is private, shame legislators don't understand the English language.

I just said it a bit more thoughtfully, with reference to the barbarity of history. That might have thrown people.

All that stuffs taken care of to some extent in the UK so with civil partnerships spouses legal rights to property are protected, as with marriage. That's the most important thing. Marriage has tax incentives to encourage children, but I'm not very knowledgeable about civil partnerships as it does not interest me. Maybe I'll look it up sometime to find more reasons to wonder about the definition of "Civilised".

By ignored, I meant left in peace to do as thou wilt...  Like everybody else...

I hope the subtitles here help keep the peace. :d

hmmmm I will ponder my bigotry, thanks for the critique, dragonblade629. Please don't confuse me with a conservative, I'm apolotical and not American. 

Watching the corporate puppet show amuses me, it's the same all over the world. But I think Paul seems the most rational American politician right now and I thought it would be interesting to share the media's intent to discard him and those he represents, or purports too, without being excessively promotional or supportive.

Sketching over the bigotry to the more relevant points was my main intent. At least Bachmann is transparently vacuous, Paul may be a more subtle figure.


----------



## daemon barbeque (Sep 9, 2011)

I just want to add a small remark about Gay marriage and the lack of child reproduction LOL.
People say that Gay marriage destroys the birth rates and family.

I see it contrary to that. A Lesbian is not going to get babies just she can't marry a woman! Or a gay man will not begin to make women pregnant. Gays are gay that's that.
OTOH, Gay couples might adopt a child who would suffer otherwise. This is actually a great service to the society. Not something to be ashamed of or even disgusted of.


----------



## Ryan-ZenGtr- (Oct 13, 2011)

Point made: two taboo topics ended a discussion on politics stone dead.

*Necro bump for reality check.*

Why can't people see past the nonsense and get to the real issues; economics is warfare.

Consider the implications of the wall street protests currently ongoing.

Why not visit www.Boomandbustblog.org for some interesting insight into economics, it might encourage further study in what appears to be a complex subject which has global implications.

Driving by as this thread has bothered me.


----------



## Explorer (Oct 13, 2011)

I don't think the conversation really needed more. Topics lose momentum all the time. 

People made their observations about Bachman, and then the conversation petered out.

However, I suspect that your confusing post didn't really inspire anyone to respond to it. There were lots of odd points (homosexuals damage the family unit, ignoring things like childless hetero marriages and child abuse as being just as damaging, for example) that it just wasn't worth going into. And then talking about a candidate who doesn't believe in the separation of church and state....

Anyway, don't take your coming in as the thread was petering out too personally.


----------



## Demiurge (Oct 13, 2011)

Well, it's a good opportunity to point out for all concerned that the Bachmann campaign has essentially shit the bed, so at least that horrible possibility has been avoided. Romney has pretty much sat back, done nothing, and waited for all of his opponents to say/do something fatally stupid- and it's working!


----------



## rectifryer (Oct 13, 2011)

Why do I find that, those who want government involved the least in business, want it involved the most in our personal lives? IS there anyone who just wants the gov't to stay the fuck out of everything? Where is that party?


----------



## murakami (Oct 13, 2011)

PeteyG said:


> Opposes gay marriage, and the right of gays to adopt.
> Doesn't believe in the separation of church and state.
> Against a woman's right to choose.
> 
> Just a few of the guys values, so I'm not sure that his rationale is entirely sound.


 

against a woman's right to choose, eh? ... hmmm... 

haha, just joking


----------



## Blind Theory (Oct 13, 2011)

She doesn't have a chance. She is so painfully fucking crazy. She slips up on facts that a 3rd grader knows by heart. She is so focused on being conservative that she is fucking up. The only women who have gone for this position in government have all been crazy in some way or another. And her husband, how much does she pay him to "act" straight?


----------



## tacotiklah (Oct 13, 2011)

Bachmann is the face of everything I and the rest of the LGBT community have been struggling against. Granted I'm still pretty new to it and all, but frankly, my eyes have been forced wide open to a lot of atrocities at the hands of people like her and the damage that her words and actions can have. Trust and believe me when I say that if she is elected president, I will work day and night to find a way to have her impeached and removed from office. As ineffective as Obama has been this term, I'm scared shitless at what republicans have to offer. I don't even claim a political party so as to be free to vote for whomever has their shit together. Unfortunately, our country has become so stagnant politically, that I doubt I'll ever have anybody truly worth voting for. 

That said, Obama can't take 100% of the blame for everything that's gone wrong. The economic crisis was here before he took office. The man did close down gitmo, found Bin Laden, and removed DADT, so it's not like he's done NOTHING to help the country. I just wish he stopped pandering to the right's beck and call so much and do what needs to be done.

If you guys REALLY want to make things better around here, keep Obama in office, and get a democratic majority back in congress. (both senate and HoR)
Intuition tells me that Obama has gotten the hang of this president thing, and that if we can give him another democratic majority, we can get the economy back on track.


----------



## Hemi-Powered Drone (Oct 13, 2011)

Well, it seems that Obama has started to grow some balls. If only the rest of Washington Democrats would.

I can't help but think, sorry for being slightly off topic, that Romney may be trying to troll all the Republicans. I find it odd that he made such a drastic change in the political spectrum, so maybe it wouldn't be so bad if he's elected. If not him, we'd at least get out of this financial hell hole with Ron Paul, but regress at least a decade socially.


----------

