• Dear Guest, Please note that adult content is not permitted on this forum. We have had our Google ads disabled at times due to some posts that were found from some time ago. Please do not post adult content and if you see any already on the forum, please report the post so that we can deal with it. Adult content is allowed in the glory hole - you will have to request permission to access it. Thanks, scara

Mitt Romney the next new leader of the free world!!!

Mate, don't know what rock you've been living under where you think the U.S. Government functions efficiently, but they haven't been able to even handle a single issue (the economy) at a time. Forgive me for being pessimistic (more like, realistic) about it.

I'm not living under any rock. The US economy is in a mess. But they're a superpower, not a 4 year old child.

On that note, an article on foreign policy and war. A bit dramatic for sure but still pretty interesting.

http://www.foreignpolicy.com/articles/2012/11/06/a_period_of_persistent_conflict ?page=0,0
 
I'm not living under any rock. The US economy is in a mess. But they're a superpower, not a 4 year old child.

I'm aware of our status in the world. Just because a country is perceived as something doesn't necessarily mean its government will act in a commensurate fashion. The Democrats control the executive branch and the senate, and the Republicans control the House. Unless both sides learn to work together and cease being obstreperous, as they have been for the past few years, we will continue to see the same gridlock and lack of productivity in Washington.
 
I'm aware of our status in the world. Just because a country is perceived as something doesn't necessarily mean its government will act in a commensurate fashion. The Democrats control the executive branch and the senate, and the Republicans control the House. Unless both sides learn to work together and cease being obstreperous, as they have been for the past few years, we will continue to see the same gridlock and lack of productivity in Washington.

Now that we can agree on. Someone on one of the news sites (it is all blending together at this point) said that 20/30 years ago, it wasn't at all uncommon to see Democrats and Republicans out in restaurants dining and whipping out political deals and compromises. Now there is quite unbelievable vitriol. Something needs to change and soon.
 
Now that we can agree on. Someone on one of the news sites (it is all blending together at this point) said that 20/30 years ago, it wasn't at all uncommon to see Democrats and Republicans out in restaurants dining and whipping out political deals and compromises. Now there is quite unbelievable vitriol. Something needs to change and soon.

That's what I meant earlier. I'm with you that the government should be able to handle more than one issue at one time, ideally. But realistically, given the way the past four years have gone, it's not looking likely. Hope I'm wrong.
 
I met a guy this summer from the US who has done a lot of work in political circles. He said that the flagrant corruption amongst American politicians is mind-boggling. He's been sat in rooms where businessmen have openly offered money to Senators etc to fight their corner politically. For a country like the US, apparently our leader in the 'free world' this is unbelievable.

And that's the corruption that is currently illegal, unless you define corruption as having to be illegal the accepted or legalized corruption is bad enough on it's own.

The amount of lobbyists is sickening, only made more sickening by the realization that those paying for those lobbyists wouldn't be spending that money unless it got them the results they wanted.
 
And that's the corruption that is currently illegal, unless you define corruption as having to be illegal the accepted or legalized corruption is bad enough on it's own.

The amount of lobbyists is sickening, only made more sickening by the realization that those paying for those lobbyists wouldn't be spending that money unless it got them the results they wanted.

Exactly!

Another interesting article imo:

http://www.slate.com/articles/news_...rate_himself_from_the_republican_party_s.html
 
The wars did not only cost $1 trillion. The Iraq War's costs alone are at least twice that because it was paid for with borrowed money. It's not easy to get a solid number because paying for war is not a simple process.

I agree our debt problem is a real one, but I don't think it's as urgent as it's being made out to be. I am not saying that we should be holding off on addressing it, though. I'm saying that we should fix our economy first (which requires spending some money), so that we can be better suited to addressing our deficit problem. For all the conservatives crying out for Obama to fix the economy, what do you want him to do? How can he work with Congress to fix it? Let me tell you, driving to the brink of not paying our debts and holding our credit rating hostage has not been a good solution.

Richie, I respect your opinions but I don't think you understand how our politics work. Our conservatives are a little bit different than your conservatives, and that's not even mentioning the social issues. Even without the wars, Bush was a big spender. And he liked spending with borrowed money. So conservative policies like less regulation are supposed to help our stagnant economy? It's that very lack of regulation that fudged us over in the first place. Banks were doing crazy things with money, knowing full well that if they slipped up, taxpayers (chumps) like me would bail them out. This is a truly sick system and the only way to fix it is through a revolution. Not a revolution with guns, but with knowledge (because knowledge is power!!!). So fudge the media and fudge the politicians, but most of all fudge the lazy populace that are too concerned with who they're voting for on The Voice over who they vote for into office.

And NewYork, I'd say the last four years ARE a testament to the diversity of issues that can be solved. Repeal don't ask don't tell, enact healthcare reform, bail-out the auto industry, helped college students with loans.
So as much blame as you put on Obama, and some of it is rightly placed, why don't I hear any of you upset with congress? The Democrats only control the white house. They have a majority in the senate as long as there's no filibuster, but we all know how that panned out.
In the end, Democrats had to compromise on extending ALL the Bush tax cuts, which is what the Republicans originally wanted. I really don't see how Republicans have made themselves accessible when they're willing to pull off the flimflam that they did.

So yes, let's cut spending. But we need to look at cutting defense, entitlements, social security and Medicare/Medicaid. What are your thoughts on a single-payer system for health care?
 
Dale Brown, president of the Financial Services Institute, cited the “closeness of the election results” in urging Mr. Obama to tread lightly on any new regulatory initiatives, a priority for his group. But looking at the enormous fiscal issues confronting the country, Mr. Brown noted that “the next 13 months are critical” because after then, “Congress will be back in re-election mode and will not tackle anything that could put their own re-elects in jeopardy.”

Did I mention that I really hate politicians?
But hey, I did vote for them so I am part of the problem.
 

I'm no political expert, but for me the reason he lost was because he was a pretty bad candidate.

Everything was served up on a plate for the Republican party, so many issues and even though it's completely unrealistic to think that Obama would be able to sort all those out in 4 years (especially in this political climate) it's a very easy story to sell to the public that he failed to bring the change he had promised.

If the Republican party had found even a half decent, half charismatic candidate I think they would have won it, possibly even comfortably. The fact that they had Palin as the vp candidate 4 years ago and now Romney as their presidential candidate following Bush who needs no further description is pretty shocking. To think that these people have been the best of the best they could find either says a lot about their ability to find good candidates or the pool of people they are searching from.
 
I'm no political expert, but for me the reason he lost was because he was a pretty bad candidate.

Everything was served up on a plate for the Republican party, so many issues and even though it's completely unrealistic to think that Obama would be able to sort all those out in 4 years (especially in this political climate) it's a very easy story to sell to the public that he failed to bring the change he had promised.

If the Republican party had found even a half decent, half charismatic candidate I think they would have won it, possibly even comfortably. The fact that they had Palin as the vp candidate 4 years ago and now Romney as their presidential candidate following Bush who needs no further description is pretty shocking. To think that these people have been the best of the best they could find either says a lot about their ability to find good candidates or the pool of people they are searching from.

Newt Gingrich. Rick Santorum. Michelle Bachmann. Ron Paul (actually agree with him on some things, but like Hoot said, he's a bit batbrick). Herman Cain the pizza guy.

But holy brick, Bachmann got re-elected. She is one crazy bitch.
 
You're really all over the place man. Forget gun control or any other non-economic issue. Sure, gun control would be nice, but let's get the deficit down, a balanced budget, and decreased entitlement spending (for increased tax swap) before we go into anything else. A divided Congress can only do so much, and fixing the economic crisis should be the first, and only, order of business right now.

Mate, the US isn't some banana republic, its the world's superpower with 300 million people. The government of the country can and should be focusing on more than one problem at a time.

There is a cabinet, people with different responsibilities. Most congressmen and senators vote on party lines within days of receiving thousand page plus bills. The argument that they can only do one thing at a time is silly.

That's what I meant earlier. I'm with you that the government should be able to handle more than one issue at one time, ideally. But realistically, given the way the past four years have gone, it's not looking likely. Hope I'm wrong.

I'd agree that the President might want to focus his political capital on the economy, but he can appoint good people to deal with other things. He's the chief executive, not the pilot, candlestick-maker, baker and butcher combined.

Ask yourself why the last four years have been so unproductive politically. Was it because Obama spent 18 months trying to be bipartisan, upsetting his own party, or because the Republicans vowed to make him a one-term President and block everything they could, even things they previously supported?
 
598452_10151115109441993_1331845735_n.jpg
 
What happens to all the poor countries if the wealthy ones fudge them all off? No trade, no purchases of agricultural products or manufacture of cheap goods. fudge them?

Just a thought.
 
To add. The UK has faster growth and lower unemployment than the US. With our swinging cuts. Was the stimulus money well spent?

Just asking.

The eurozone will shrink 0.4 percent next year whilst the UK will grow 0.8%. Not bad eh?

Cameron has been in 2 years but already Labours 13 years of spending and mismanagement has been forgotten. Yet Obama gets to blame everything on bush after 4 years in power? And 60% of Americans agree with him?

Hmmmmm
 
To add. The UK has faster growth and lower unemployment than the US. With our swinging cuts. Was the stimulus money well spent?

Just asking.

The eurozone will shrink 0.4 percent next year whilst the UK will grow 0.8%. Not bad eh?

Cameron has been in 2 years but already Labours 13 years of spending and mismanagement has been forgotten. Yet Obama gets to blame everything on bush after 4 years in power? And 60% of Americans agree with him?

Hmmmmm

I'll believe the growth figures when I see them (and maybe not even then considering how often they are reviewed) but the rest you said is right. Of course Bush should continue to take some of the blame, just as Labour should continue to take some of the blame here, but Obama got 4 years and hasn't done nearly enough to tackle the deficit and debt problems.

I'm not expecting the Tories to have turned around the country by 2015, but I do believe they will have done much more than Obama did when you compare first terms.

I'm sure papaspur will come on here and blame the Senate for filibustering because lets be honest, when you control the presidency, house and senate that's pretty much the only excuse you can use. Not to say that I think the Republicans are blame free in this, but if I were an American voter I would expect a lot more from those first two years if nothing else.

The reality, as I see it, is that Obama spent all of his time and political capital in those first two years reforming healthcare and didn't focus enough on the economy. In politics you have to prioritise certain issues and the economy was clearly not #1 on Obamas list.
 
http://www.thedailymash.co.uk/news/...s-turns-out-to-be-terrible-idea-2012110748098

romney425.jpg


DEMANDING a square deal for America’s rapists is not a vote-winner, it has been confirmed.


Republican senatorial candidates Todd Akin and Richard Mourdock were soundly defeated suggesting voters are still not ready for their radical, pro-*struggle cuddle* message.


Meanwhile, presidential candidate Mitt Romney, who refused to disown Mourdock’s comments, lost the female vote heavily despite repeatedly pointing out that he was relatively handsome.


Republican strategist Todd Logan said: “So women are not keen on *struggle cuddle*? That’s a real a noggin-scratcher.”
 
Yep, and I believe the Olympics only had a minor impact on that growth (0.2% perhaps?)

Yes. An if you factor in 0.5 for the jubilee we were never in recession in the first place!!

It's anaemic growth of course. But we are treading a fine line. And doing it better than any other major economy.
 
Back