Thread: US Presidential Election - Peanut Gallery

They are pretty much the same as far as I can tell. It all seems a bit meaningless, a charade.
For that reason this election is not interesting, even though the most powerful president on earth is being elected.
Obama was supposed to be a fresh breeze, a democrat, black etc.
But his foreign policy continued in the same way and the drone attacks started.

Originally Posted by Hanna

They are pretty much the same as far as I can tell. It all seems a bit meaningless, a charade.
For that reason this election is not interesting, even though the most powerful president on earth is being elected.
Obama was supposed to be a fresh breeze, a democrat, black etc.
But his foreign policy continued in the same way and the drone attacks started.

Well, you're correct about that. With either candidate, the drone attacks will continue. I have mixed feelings about it, myself. I think they're a necessary tool against terrorism, but then again sometimes innocents suffer. It's hard to fair to either argument, I think.

Originally Posted by kgcole

Well, you're correct about that. With either candidate, the drone attacks will continue. I have mixed feelings about it, myself. I think they're a necessary tool against terrorism, but then again sometimes innocents suffer. It's hard to fair to either argument, I think.

I think the argument is simple. The drone attacks are political and a violation of law and ethics. There are accusations that some are done without support of Congress and/or are Constitution violations.

Also, the U.S. has a 16 (some say more) trillion dollar debt but still spend (and it's climbing) on a military-industrial complex that they cannot afford. This is an elaborate topic but it is not that complicated to at least, single out examples here and there.

Originally Posted by 14Russian

Also, the U.S. has a 16 (some say more) trillion dollar debt but still spend (and it's climbing) on a military-industrial complex that they cannot afford. This is an elaborate topic but it is not that complicated to at least, single out examples here and there.

I agree with you that military spending is out of control. I'd rather see a tighter budget with focus on capability.

Originally Posted by Hanna

They are pretty much the same as far as I can tell. It all seems a bit meaningless, a charade.
For that reason this election is not interesting, even though the most powerful president on earth is being elected.
Obama was supposed to be a fresh breeze, a democrat, black etc.
But his foreign policy continued in the same way and the drone attacks started.

It's obvious to anyone who isn't brainwashed and conditioned. But, most people are stupid and have their heads in the sand.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=sZLqsRqKFyI

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=0Uh_sXZ6URc

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=vaOg69wD28M

I've suggested to people here (in chat) to watch any one of these videos but AFAIK, no one did. Big surprise. Oh well, what can you expect of humans, right?

Originally Posted by 14Russian

Oh well, what can you expect of humans, right?

You could expect pretty much the same thing of the reptiles as well.

Originally Posted by Hanna

They are pretty much the same as far as I can tell.

For a woman, they are very much two different candidates. One supports the reversal of Roe v. Wade and one does not.
For a GLBTG, they are very much two different candidates. One supports Marriage Equality and one does not.

The other issues like taxes and spending and cutting out FEMA and all that... we have heard promises/threats all before like "read my lips" and they were never kept. However, over the past few years our country has made great strides to be much more inclusive. Much more understanding of others and it would be a very sad day if we started to go backwards. To single out a class of people and say you are not worthy of being married because you are not "normal." Or to tell a young woman what she can or can't do with her own body (for whatever reason) because it is YOUR religious belief and not hers.

Originally Posted by rockzmom

For a woman, they are very much two different candidates. One supports the reversal of Roe v. Wade and one does not.
For a GLBTG, they are very much two different candidates. One supports Marriage Equality and one does not.

The other issues like taxes and spending and cutting out FEMA and all that... we have heard promises/threats all before like "read my lips" and they were never kept. However, over the past few years our country has made great strides to be much more inclusive. Much more understanding of others and it would be a very sad day if we started to go backwards. To single out a class of people and say you are not worthy of being married because you are not "normal." Or to tell a young woman what she can or can't do with her own body (for whatever reason) because it is YOUR religious belief and not hers.

I very much agree...there are stark differences between the candidates. Myself, I lean to the liberal side, but in the spirit of cooperation I think there are some things we should compromise on. But that's such an ugly word these days...compromise.

Originally Posted by rockzmom

For a GLBTG, they are very much two different candidates. One supports Marriage Equality and one does not.

I'm "GLBT," but I oppose "Marriage Equality" as Obama defines it. On the other hand, I support federally-recognized "Civil Unions" in all 50 states, and I've been consistently pissed off by the lack of "proactive" support for Civil Unions among most Republicans, including Romney.

Which reminds me that earlier I had occasion to look up the "standard" Russian translation for an immortal phrase from Romeo and Juliet: Чума пади на оба [их] дома! (In the original, it's actually "your houses," but it's commonly paraphrased as "their houses." For that matter, it's often misquoted as "pox", оспа, rather than "plague", чума.)

ЗЫ: And another immortal phrase: В этом нельзя винить меня, я проголосовал за Кодоса!!

Originally Posted by Throbert McGee

I'm "GLBT," but I oppose "Marriage Equality" as Obama defines it.

Which is not to say I'm angry that "Same Sex Marriage" has now been approved by popular referendum in both Maryland and Maine.

(For those outside the US, "SSM" had previously lost every single time it was the subject of a voter referendum, in about 30 different states!)

Originally Posted by Throbert McGee

Which is not to say I'm angry that "Same Sex Marriage" has now been approved by popular referendum in both Maryland and Maine.

(For those outside the US, "SSM" had previously lost every single time it was the subject of a voter referendum, in about 30 different states!)

Don't forget Washington State, Throbert. We passed marriage equality by a large margin here! And also legalized cannabis for recreational use!

Originally Posted by Deborski

Don't forget Washington State, Throbert. We passed marriage equality by a large margin here!

Ah, I thought the votes were still being counted for that measure -- I'd only heard confirmations for MD and ME. But the margins in all three states were relatively close, I think... in the "52% for, 48% against" range. (Which, apparently, was about the same as the margin by which Washington's "Domestic Partnership" referendum had passed a few years ago.)

Incidentally, the situations were somewhat different in all three states:

• Washington already had (since 2009) very strong "domestic partnership" recognition for same-sex couples.
• Maine also had same-sex "domestic partnerships," but AFAIK, the Maine version was rather more limited than Washington's. For instance, the Maine DP law didn't provide "widow(er)" pensions to same-sex partners of state police officers killed in the line of duty, but the Washington DP law did.
• Maryland did not have any form of "domestic partnership" or "civil union" law, although it did recognize same-sex unions that had been performed in other states.

So, in practical terms, it's same-sex couples in MD who have gained the most, while the change in WA state is largely symbolic, and ME is in between.

And also legalized cannabis for recreational use!

Wow, I hadn't even heard about that one. Apparently Colorado did, too. But I would expect major resistance from the Federal gov't, which has historically been hostile even to "medically prescribed marijuana" laws passed by states. And the governor of Colorado reportedly commented, "Don't open the potato chips yet..."

Originally Posted by Throbert McGee

Ah, I thought the votes were still being counted for that measure -- I'd only heard confirmations for MD and ME.

Well, the final count for WA isn't over - however at this point the projections show that it won't be defeated. Everyone is reporting it as a win for gay rights.

Daily Kos: Marriage Equality called for Washington State
"With 60 percent of the vote counted, R74 already has the support of 65% of King County and is performing well in key Eastern Washington counties. Simply put, it’s now impossible for opponents to overcome the 52-48% spread for R74."

Wow, I hadn't even heard about that one. Apparently Colorado did, too. But I would expect major resistance from the Federal gov't, which has historically been hostile even to "medically prescribed marijuana" laws passed by states. And the governor of Colorado reportedly commented, "Don't open the potato chips yet..."

Absolutely we can expect opposition. However, with Obama in his second term and without re-election worries, we may find him more supportive of legalization than in times past.

The other thing to consider is how alcohol prohibition was finally defeated. I believe there were 26 states with various alcohol laws of their own passed before the federal government finally relented and prohibition ended.

At this point, there are 18 or 19 states with cannabis legalized either medically or fully or decriminalized. Cannabis has already been available to medical users in Washington State, although there has been extensive push-back from the feds, with dispensaries being shut down left and right. Collective farming is technically allowed under the provisions of the medical laws, and has been going on legally for some time now in King and Spokane counties (there was one remaining collective in Spokane until a month ago, when he closed down voluntarily because he has purchased a license to sell under the new law, which will treat cannabis in a manner similar to alcohol).

Sure, we can expect more federal push-back, but the latest university studies contradict outdated federal studies and reveal that cannabis is not harmful and is in fact beneficial and can aid in the cure of multiple illnesses. If the people continue to push for their rights in the individual states, eventually the federal government will have to relent as it did in the case of alcohol prohibition almost a century ago.

The cannabis legalization initiative passed even in conservative Spokane county, where I live, so I am encouraged that legalization has bipartisan support!

Originally Posted by Hanna

... even though the most powerful president on earth is being elected.

I'm sure that Chinese president will reach the top again...

Originally Posted by sperk

If voting changed anything, they'd make it illegal.
Emma Goldman

I do agree, in one way. With time, they all horribly resemble each other.

"It is a common error to assume that the politician's role is to create jobs,encourage economic activity, enhance the welfare and well-being of hissubjects, preserve the territorial integrity of his country, and fulfill a hostof other functions.

In truth, the politician has a single and exclusive role: to get re-elected. His primary responsibility is to his party and its members. He owes thempatronage: jobs, sinecures, guaranteed income or cash flow, access to thepublic purse, and the intoxicating wielding of power. His relationship is withhis real constituency - the party's rank and file - and he is accountable tothem the same way a CEO (Chief Executive Officer) answers to the corporation'smajor shareholders.

To make sure that they get re-elected, politicians are sometimes required toimplement reforms and policy measures that contribute to the general welfare ofthe populace and promote it. At other times, they have to refrain from actionto preserve their electoral assets and extend their political life expectancy."

S.Vakin

Originally Posted by Ina

To make sure that they get re-elected, politicians are sometimes required toimplement reforms and policy measures that contribute to the general welfare ofthe populace and promote it. At other times, they have to refrain from actionto preserve their electoral assets and extend their political life expectancy."

S.Vakin

Could be that sums it up....lol

Originally Posted by Ina

I'm sure that Chinese president will reach the top again...



I do agree, in one way. With time, they all horribly resemble each other.

"It is a common error to assume that the politician's role is to create jobs,encourage economic activity, enhance the welfare and well-being of hissubjects, preserve the territorial integrity of his country, and fulfill a hostof other functions.

In truth, the politician has a single and exclusive role: to get re-elected. His primary responsibility is to his party and its members. He owes thempatronage: jobs, sinecures, guaranteed income or cash flow, access to thepublic purse, and the intoxicating wielding of power. His relationship is withhis real constituency - the party's rank and file - and he is accountable tothem the same way a CEO (Chief Executive Officer) answers to the corporation'smajor shareholders.

To make sure that they get re-elected, politicians are sometimes required toimplement reforms and policy measures that contribute to the general welfare ofthe populace and promote it. At other times, they have to refrain from actionto preserve their electoral assets and extend their political life expectancy."

S.Vakin

Does he talk about maximizing profits and cash flow? What about selling out and having a nice bank account so if you **** up the country (economy and all), that you have enough to live on some Island someplace? If not, it's just another author with some 'critical' views aimed to sell books.

But, yeah, it's about getting re-elected and being content with being puppets.

Originally Posted by 14Russian

Does he talk about maximizing profits and cash flow? What about selling out and having a nice bank account so if you **** up the country (economy and all), that you have enough to live on some Island someplace? If not, it's just another author with some 'critical' views aimed to sell books.

But, yeah, it's about getting re-elected and being content with being puppets.

No honey, he scrutinizes some loudmouths, public figures and Mr. I-am-all-important-s and such types through the frames of social psychiatry, psychiatric epidemiology and sophisticated sense of humor. So, it means he took the right approach.