American politics and news thread

This can be a place to discuss the ins and outs of American politics.

I will start, this whole situation with bombing Libya is stupid and I don't think Obama had any right to declare anything on that country. Let them be, we have our own problems on the homefront, lets deal with ourselves first. This is one of the things I have always hated about America, thinking we have the right to do whatever we want against whoever we see fit (like being the police of the world). Until this country is back on its feet and out of debt (which will never happen), we should be fully focused on our own country.

I'm sorry, but I can't for one minute agree with this aloof, inward-looking, isolationist mentality many have. Especially in the states, from what I've noticed. Either amongst the youth or academe. An attitude also rife within the UN, coupled with the same haggard 'Western Imperialism' shibboleths.

As world powers, we have a responsibility to get our hands dirty, and look out for despotic regimes that are consistently, and almost mockingly abusing human rights. Looking beyond our own interests of self-preservation, and aiming to define one of those uniquely human traits. Altruism.

I backed the 2003 invasion of Iraq (despite the dubious, if not outright illegal vindications given by Blair. The '45 minuet warning' crap), and I similarly support this.

It's not a right, it's an obligation. Like wearing a condom.

Like it or not the US is the world's cop, because there is nobody else out there you'd want doing the job. But that doesn't mean the US must involve itself in every single problem. It simply cannot. Rather, it must pick and choose. Is Libya the right place at the right time? I'm conflicted. I honestly don't know. It would be wonderful if we could further democratic ferment in that part of the world, the problem is we have no idea whether the Libyan rebels are much if any better than Gadhafi. It's a real pickle.

I'm in favor of the US using it's military assets in Libya, provided it doesn't become another Iraq. Carrier support, enforcing no-fly zones. I mean, what are we supposed to do, let Gaddafi crush the rebels? This could be an opportunity for pro-democracy supporters in the Middle East.

I don't think it's being Team America: World Police if our tools are used in the proper fashion.

That said, I care more about what is going on the homefront.

Stilicho Bias wrote:

the problem is we have no idea whether the Libyan rebels are much if any better than Gadhafi. It's a real pickle.

That's the question mark for me. That's the problem with these things; who exactly are we handing the keys to?

I do find these recent protests and uprising encouraging. The Middle East is simply a backward part of the world, but I think the regular people must be as decent as the people anywhere else.

We have a set of laws. Bush, Obama, or anyone else should have played by the rules. I don't care if the UN gives the President the go-ahead, or not.

Also, staying away from the Middle East is not isolationism, in my opinion. We're fucking broke, for starters. It's come to the point where our government faces shut down nearly every month. We don't have the money to go fucking around with a bunch of half-wits over in Libya. Let our "allies" take care of the job, if it's so important.

I'm not really liking our recent anti-Israel stand, either. Seems that the current administration rather side with people who fly jets into skyscrapers or bomb subways, rather than sticking with those closest to us in the Middle East.

Mr. Brown wrote:

We're fucking broke, for starters.

That's why I would only support light involvement at this juncture. Having carriers near by and enforcing a no-fly zone isn't going to bankrupt the USA.

I would prefer a lot more focus on domestic issues. It would be nice if Obama had the balls to stand up the peeps who wanna deregulate the shit out of everything, completely cut off the lower classes, and send all of our jobs to India.

He can take a stand against Gaddafi, but not Boehner?

The White Tuxedo wrote:

It would be nice if Obama had the balls to stand up the peeps who wanna deregulate the shit out of everything, completely cut off the lower classes, and send all of our jobs to India.

He can take a stand against Gaddafi, but not Boehner?

Yeah, I agree with that bit.

Instead of Mr. and Mrs. Obama worrying about people drinking soda, I think we should focus on keeping and creating jobs here in the US.

Mr. Brown wrote:

The White Tuxedo wrote:

It would be nice if Obama had the balls to stand up the peeps who wanna deregulate the shit out of everything, completely cut off the lower classes, and send all of our jobs to India.

He can take a stand against Gaddafi, but not Boehner?

Yeah, I agree with that bit.

Instead of Mr. and Mrs. Obama worrying about people drinking soda, I think we should focus on keeping and creating jobs here in the US.

I think the ecomony is the biggest issue by far, and we're even more fucked if Obama loses next year. We're already fucked because Obama really does look like Jimmy Carter 2.0, but he's better than a Gingrich.

Oh yeah, I type this drinking a diet cherry soda. I drink a handful of them a day now.

Trump seems to be a worthy candidate.


Maybe he can make a White House reality show.

A Trump presidency would be both hilarious and awesome.

Do it, America.

Trump would be like the USA's Bob Hawke, Yeltsin or Brlusconi.

In other words, awesome.

I actually think if he could get up he'd be decent. He probably has more balls than any US President from my lifetime. I mean, he might start World War III, but he also might do great things for the US.

As far as our involvement in world affairs, it's always a "damned if we do, damned if we don't"

If there's injustice in the world, people want someone to do something. Then when the U.S. and others step in, they're all of a sudden labeled "World Police"

Frankly, it's not a good time for us, as Brown mentioned, the economy the way it is and the state budgets the way they are going, but the middle east didn't exactly wait for us to be prepared for them to have revolutions every other day. It's just a tricky situation.

As far as Obama goes, the Carter comparison is more and more accurate all the time. There's all sorts of things he wants to do, and he talks a good talk. Then that's about all he does....

Vesper wrote:

Trump would be like the USA's Bob Hawke, Yeltsin or Brlusconi.

In other words, awesome.

I actually think if he could get up he'd be decent. He probably has more balls than any US President from my lifetime. I mean, he might start World War III, but he also might do great things for the US.

You could be right, Vesper.

I've seen a few interviews with him and like, for the most part, where he stands. I'm also someone who thinks that our government, for now, should be run more like a business. Trump would be perfect for that. Once things start cooking in that area of US politics, it'll be interesting to see where he goes. I can't think of anyone who would do a better job, anyway, unless there's a Reagan clone out there somewhere.

I certainly think he's viable. He would probably appeal to the moderate Tea Party base, a lot of moderate conservatives/swing voters who dislike the radicalness of Palin and the like. The man's been cultivating his name into a brand since the 90s, which has to speak for something. He's very laconic (as are his kids), which would draw a sharp contrast to Obama's more verbose and grandiose speaking style. He could probably sell his bankruptcy and recovery as an example of the American dream, or some shit, if he wanted to.

All he'd need to do is make Ivanka his VP and he'd have it :twisted:

And all his dirt is probably already out there and just accepted for what it is. That he used to make women have vaginal exams before dating them probably won't do the Democrats much in the way of vote robbing.

I like what I've seen of Trump. Some of his lines are bordering on the BS side, but a lot of them are very good. I don't doubt he'd have the contacts and the influence to get some Manhattan big wigs to negotiate things over diplomats, etc (If he can get them to make idiots of themselves on The Apprentice, he can get them to do anything ). And his stance to China is admirable. Whether it's practical is another matter entirely.

Plus, it's Donald Fucking Trump.

Trump? Nah. America could use Schwarzenegger as president. Or even better - Putin.

You gotta be Putin' me on!

:face:

Ugh, Trump is a joke, but is it sad I'd rather him than Sarah Palin?

I would rather vote for Trump, than Palin or Obama.

Maybe someone more versed in this can tell me, but since the US uses cash accounting for its budget figures, does that make their defecit look worse or better than it actually is?

Of the 1%, by the 1%, for the 1%

Quote :

It’s no use pretending that what has obviously happened has not in fact happened. The upper 1 percent of Americans are now taking in nearly a quarter of the nation’s income every year. In terms of wealth rather than income, the top 1 percent control 40 percent. Their lot in life has improved considerably. Twenty-five years ago, the corresponding figures were 12 percent and 33 percent. One response might be to celebrate the ingenuity and drive that brought good fortune to these people, and to contend that a rising tide lifts all boats. That response would be misguided. While the top 1 percent have seen their incomes rise 18 percent over the past decade, those in the middle have actually seen their incomes fall. For men with only high-school degrees, the decline has been precipitous—12 percent in the last quarter-century alone. All the growth in recent decades—and more—has gone to those at the top. In terms of income equality, America lags behind any country in the old, ossified Europe that President George W. Bush used to deride. Among our closest counterparts are Russia with its oligarchs and Iran. While many of the old centers of inequality in Latin America, such as Brazil, have been striving in recent years, rather successfully, to improve the plight of the poor and reduce gaps in income, America has allowed inequality to grow.

http://www.vanityfair.com/society/features/2011/05/top-one-percent-201105

It's quite odd that certain individuals in US politics choose to attack teachers at a time when the US economy primarily needs a highly educated workforce. We're a generation or so away from blue-collar manufacturing jobs being all but gone in the West.

Salomé wrote:

It's quite odd that certain individuals in US politics choose to attack teachers at a time when the US economy primarily needs a highly educated workforce. We're a generation or so away from blue-collar manufacturing jobs being all but gone in the West.

Indeed, but the neglect of manufacturing is a grave mistake. Part of the genius of Henry Ford was that he realised high wages enabled his workers to buy his cars. The' trickle down effect' produced a virtuous circle. That recognition that people need well paid jobs if they're to continue to consume seems to have all but disappeared in the West.

Salomé wrote:

It's quite odd that certain individuals in US politics choose to attack teachers at a time when the US economy primarily needs a highly educated workforce. We're a generation or so away from blue-collar manufacturing jobs being all but gone in the West.

Well, the American education system, K through Ph.D. is an utter joke, and teacher incompetence is a big part of the problem. There are some good ones of course--I'm sure our esteemed LaLa is one of them--but far too many have imbibed the insipid self esteem/victimology/social "justice" pedagogy promulgated by colleges of education, without having remotely mastered a single discrete subject.

From what I've heard, that much more common in so called 'higher education.'