American Politics

[A Nonny Moose 8,262]

Do you suppose that the national cafard over communism is finally over?  Most Americans have put it on the back burner, but I think this pot can still be brought to a boil.

[Larks2242 251]

So Hillary Clinton is back in the fold. Where's Sirhan Sirhan when you need him?

 

This is going to be a long cycle, Now that the field has begun, we can expect it to dominate the media in full force for the next 20 months.

[Munchiez 74]

Ugh, Hillary. People keep wanting fake change and lies. They're so blind. There isn't going to be change. Her administration would not keep us safe. Remember Benghazi, secret emails, lies, taking foreign donations.......the list goes on. I don't trust her. The political agenda of hers is to be a better Barrack Obama, a new "newer" face of the left. This time embodied by a woman, to add to the fresh new bold era. If you speak against her you're sexist and are against silly non existent "change" there's gonna be change and it's going to come in the worst ways possible. More secrets will be kept from the American public, more tyrannical style laws will be introduced and inspired by her, and it will only continue our downwards spiral. I'm out.

[A Nonny Moose 8,262]

Is the Democratic party as bankrupt for candidates as that?  With Hillary what are the odds for a stampeded to the Republican right?  From the present bunch you won't get a new Ronnie Reagan you know.

[Meg 368]

Time to pull out an old Chicago album and sing "America needs you, Harry Truman".

 

Nothing quite like nostalgia from forty years ago.   

[Sabretooth78 808]

Do you suppose that the national cafard over communism is finally over?  Most Americans have put it on the back burner, but I think this pot can still be brought to a boil.

 

I suspect it's been relegated from a legitimate national security concern to one of those divisive items you can always rely on to get people on both sides of the issue riled up to the point of making you wonder what they spend their time doing all day.  See also fracking, "global warming", oil pipelines, flag burning, gay marriage (yes this has been devolved into a mere wedge issue), etc.

[Duke87 1,070]

I also think it's just a question of partisan politics. Anything Obama does is going to draw criticism from the right.

Still, we spent decades teaching our children that communism is evil incarnate. Even if the cold war is over I can understand some people feeling like opening up relations when the regime hasn't changed to be a capitulation to the enemy and a sign of weakness.

[A Nonny Moose 8,262]

Time to pull out an old Chicago album and sing "America needs you, Harry Truman".

 

Nothing quite like nostalgia from forty years ago.   

Well, I don't think that was the last time I liked the way things were going down there, but it is close. 

 

Americans deserve better than what they've got for choices right now, and there is no question about it.  Both parties are in trouble, but don't seem to realize it.  They are captive to too many external interests and the lobbies are really wagging the dog.  Congress has too many "old boys" and nobody seems to care.

 

I think Hillary has about as much chance of becoming president as a nitrocellulose dog chasing an asbestos cat through hell.  Too bad in a way because the Republicans haven't turned up anyone worth a "bucket of warm spit", to quote a Vice-president.

[Larks2242 251]

Marco Rubio's hat is in.

 

As my senator, I know him very well, He would do well to win what many consider a very important swing state, However I find it difficult to find anyone more qualified then Rand Paul.

 

I'll be listening closely to see if he sways my opinion.

[A Nonny Moose 8,262]

Marco Rubio's hat is in.

 

As my senator, I know him very well, He would do well to win what many consider a very important swing state, However I find it difficult to find anyone more qualified then Rand Paul.

 

I'll be listening closely to see if he sways my opinion.

Yet another Florida Republican.  Do you think he could out-bulge Jeb Bush?

[Larks2242 251]

 

Marco Rubio's hat is in.

 

As my senator, I know him very well, He would do well to win what many consider a very important swing state, However I find it difficult to find anyone more qualified then Rand Paul.

 

I'll be listening closely to see if he sways my opinion.

Yet another Florida Republican.  Do you think he could out-bulge Jeb Bush?

 

 

One can hope, I've never been the biggest Jeb fan, He is a bit more of an establishment type and far more moderate and less libertarian. 

[A Nonny Moose 8,262]

Larks, my friend, you need to do your sums again.  Think about what would happen if you had a Tea Party president and congress.  Extremism of any kind is evil.

[BLANKBLANK 4,414]

Larks, my friend, you need to do your sums again.  Think about what would happen if you had a Tea Party president and congress.  Extremism of any kind is evil.

 

The Founding Fathers were extremists. They were extremely anti-monarchy and extremely self-determination.

 

Awful grammar there at the end but you get the idea.

[A Nonny Moose 8,262]

That was then, this is now.  The founding father were in love with the French philosophers whose ravings lead to the French revolution followed by the Directory.  Overall, not a good example.  Look at where things went with the extremism of the 1930s, both in Europe and in America with the pacifist movement.

[Meg 368]

 

 

Marco Rubio's hat is in.

 

As my senator, I know him very well, He would do well to win what many consider a very important swing state, However I find it difficult to find anyone more qualified then Rand Paul.

 

I'll be listening closely to see if he sways my opinion.

Yet another Florida Republican.  Do you think he could out-bulge Jeb Bush?

 

 

One can hope, I've never been the biggest Jeb fan, He is a bit more of an establishment type and far more moderate and less libertarian. 

 

 

 

Problem is, a moderate Republican isn't likely to win the primary but it will take moderate Republican to win a national election.

 

To put it another way:  the further right the Republican nominee is, the more likely it is that the Democratic nominee will win.

 

or am I missing something?

[A Nonny Moose 8,262]

Unfortunately, as an outside observer, I tend to agree that it is Hillary's to lose, simply because the Republicans have nobody moderate enough to win.

[Larks2242 251]

 

 

 

Marco Rubio's hat is in.

 

As my senator, I know him very well, He would do well to win what many consider a very important swing state, However I find it difficult to find anyone more qualified then Rand Paul.

 

I'll be listening closely to see if he sways my opinion.

Yet another Florida Republican.  Do you think he could out-bulge Jeb Bush?

 

 

One can hope, I've never been the biggest Jeb fan, He is a bit more of an establishment type and far more moderate and less libertarian. 

 

 

 

Problem is, a moderate Republican isn't likely to win the primary but it will take moderate Republican to win a national election.

 

To put it another way:  the further right the Republican nominee is, the more likely it is that the Democratic nominee will win.

 

or am I missing something?

 

 

I believe the opposite, Mitt Romney in many states could be considered a liberal, He came from a state that supported many of the policies Obama has. Romney himself said his plan was the precursor to Obamacare, Had someone like Rick Perry or Santorum run, I think the election would have been much closer. People like Cruz, Rubio and Rand Paul bring a lot more excitement then Mitt Romney.

 

 

 

Larks, my friend, you need to do your sums again.  Think about what would happen if you had a Tea Party president and congress.  Extremism of any kind is evil.

 

I think a lot would get done, We wouldn't have the gridlock we currently have that is for sure.

[A Nonny Moose 8,262]

Excitement isn't important.  Competence is.  If you want to test a man's character, put him in power, but be prepared to remove him if necessary.

[Larks2242 251]

Excitement isn't important.  Competence is.  If you want to test a man's character, put him in power, but be prepared to remove him if necessary.

 

Like Bill Clinton right? Yet the nation seems more then happy to go with round too.

 

I really don't understand how more of the same = a different result, definition of insanity right there.

[Meg 368]

 

 

Problem is, a moderate Republican isn't likely to win the primary but it will take moderate Republican to win a national election.

 

To put it another way:  the further right the Republican nominee is, the more likely it is that the Democratic nominee will win.

 

or am I missing something?

 

 

I believe the opposite, Mitt Romney in many states could be considered a liberal, He came from a state that supported many of the policies Obama has. Romney himself said his plan was the precursor to Obamacare, Had someone like Rick Perry or Santorum run, I think the election would have been much closer. People like Cruz, Rubio and Rand Paul bring a lot more excitement then Mitt Romney.

 

 

 

One problem with Romney was he managed to repeatedly show everyone how clueless he was to the problems the average person had to deal with.   His wife having a "couple of Cadillacs" was supposed to be reassuring.  Instead he just sounded like an out of touch, pompous, rich person.

 

I think the killer was the bit about it not being his job to worry about 47% of the population.   Seriously?  Anyone, regardless of where they are on the spectrum, is going to lose a national election after that statement.

 

I think that, if Rick Perry or Santorum had run, the election wouldn't have been remotely close because people would have been running screaming in the other direction.   and I believe that will happen this time.

 

All I want is two candidates who are nationally viable so there is an actual choice.   But I'll be happy and amazed if we get one.

[CapTon 592]

Elections don't matter when it comes to the economy. It'll crash within the next two years no matter who's running the show because politicans don't know how to stop tossing money into a clogged toilet and taxing everyone. Constantly taxing your people and imposing new ones all the time doesn't solve your issues if you can't stop spending.

[Ocram's Razr 964]

I would rather vote for my tocayo, Mr. Rubio than Mrs. Clinton. However, if Ralph Nader runs, I will try to split the democrat vote in my district by voting for him. If Gary Johnson runs and neither Marco Rubio nor Ralph Nader run, I will vote for Gary Johnson (who I voted for last time).

 

 

--Ocram

 

Mr. Frame A. Table thinks Mr. Frame A. Blonde seems like one of the better candidates this year.

[CapTon 592]

I'll "vote" (I can't legally vote, but I'm referring to my family) for Donald Trump if he runs. Seems like the best candidate for the Republican party out there.

[Sabretooth78 808]

Wasn't Rubio the one who came out guns blazing against the Cuba detente in large part presumably just because it was Obama who championed it?  Count me out.  I voted for Gary Johnson as well.  I will never vote another mainstream D or R so long as I live.

 

 

 

Excitement isn't important.  Competence is.  If you want to test a man's character, put him in power, but be prepared to remove him if necessary.

 

Like Bill Clinton right? Yet the nation seems more then happy to go with round too.

 

I really don't understand how more of the same = a different result, definition of insanity right there.

 

 

I'd much rather have round 2 of Bill Jeff than I would round 3 of Bush II - which is what you're going to get with Hilary or GOP offering save perhaps...perhaps Rand Paul.  Because of that uncertainty, look for Paul to poll favorably and therefore be marginalized just like his father was.

 

Or maybe I'm just wistfully recalling that the last time anybody could have legitimately said this was the greatest nation on earth was during that time period.  Didn't feel like passively accepting a 3rd world future was a requirement of citizenship "back then".

[TrentW82 0]

 

 

As for why the parties have the positions they do... well, that's a tougher question. There isn't so much a reason why as there is an explanation as to how it's consistent with their political views.

The Republican party is typically economically permissive but socially restrictive, while the Democratic party is typically economically restrictive but socially permissive.

There's a saying that goes "Democrats want to regulate the boardroom, Republicans want to regulate the bedroom".

 

 

Pretty much exactly the same in Australia. The economically permissive party is more socially conservative; the economically restrictive party is more socially progressive.

 

What differs is our terminology though.. Our socially conservative equivalent of the Republicans are called the Liberal Party! Whereas Americans term the socially progressive democrats as 'liberals'.

 

Interestingly too, they are generally more opposed to becoming a republic... So our equivalent of the Republican Party don't want to be a republic and they're called the Liberal Party lol. 

[Sabretooth78 808]

It's my understanding that only in the US does "liberal" carry that meaning.  Our ruling class has cleverly turned it into a bad word instead of one derived from "liberty" and the thought-averse masses have bought into it hook, line and sinker.

 

Liberty, that little thing this country was supposedly founded on.

[A Nonny Moose 8,262]

At least in Canada we pretend who's who with proper, no prevarication labelling.  The Conservative Party of Canada is centre right, the Liberal Party of Canada is centre left, and the New Democratic Party (the only ones who don't fess up) are the socialists and slightly more left of centre than the Liberals.  Then there are the splinter parties with Seats in the House: Bloc Quebecois - separatists, a moribund group; Greens with one seat and maybe one more next time out, voices crying in the wilderness.  Our next federal election is October 2015 unless the writ is dropped sooner.

 

Meanwhile, the Mike Duffy trial is turning out to be a juicy swipe at the ruling Conservatives who deserve everything that comes to roost.

[TrentW82 0]

The 3 major parties here are the Liberal Party (centre right, although the current Prime Minister is further towards the hard right), the Australian Labor Party (centre left and very much aligned with unions) and the Australian Greens (further left than Labor, and favour environment over workers). 

 

We have a bunch of minor parties too but with the two-party preferencial voting system all they really do is flow preferences to the two major parties - Labor & Liberal. Although the Greens have really come to prominence in the last 10-15 years and particularly in Melbourne there are alot of inner city electorates where the two-party preference is now between Labor & Greens with the Liberal Party an insignificant third, forced to flow their preferences to Labor! 

 

The last federal election was won in a landslide by the Liberal Party but they have become so unpopular since coming into power that 3 out of the 4 state elections since have been won by Labor, and even the state the Liberals retained had a huge swing the other way.

 

If there's one thing Australians hold sacred, in the same way Americans hold liberty & freedom sacred, it's our workplace rights and protections. Any government who even hints at scrapping penalty rates, relaxing unfair dismissal laws or lowering the minimum wage loses popularity very quickly! 

 

Something I am interested to hear from Americans, is why is there such a fear of universal healthcare? I know that from all accounts I've heard, "Obamacare" hasn't been the best executed attempt at a healthcare system. But Obamacare aside, I know alot of Americans are opposed to the idea of universal healthcare in general. Almost as though if your government provides you with healthcare, you're one step away from being communists or something. It doesn't make sense to me. You still pay taxes the same as we do, so don't you think paying tax should automatically give you healthcare as well?

 

Australia isn't close to being communist, but I've never paid for a doctor's appointment in my life and don't ever plan to, and don't believe i should have to simply because I pay tax so I believe healthcare is a right. So I find it strange that the idea of a government providing basic healthcare with all the tax dollars it rakes in can be seen as something to 'fear' rather than embrace. I'd go as far as to say it's a basic right that you shouldn't have to pay (besides paying tax of course) to receive medical treatment. Otherwise what are you paying tax for if it doesn't even provide basic life necessities like medical treatment?

 

This may be a simplistic description but in Australia healthcare essentially works like this: You pay an income tax. Income tax includes a 'Medicare levy', but really it's just part of your tax rate (you don't notice it). You get sick. You go to the doctor. You get treated. You pay nothing. The medical clinic 'bulk bills' the government for the number of patients it saw. The government rebates all the medical clinics out of the pool of money it has collected from the Medicare allocation of income taxes. Pretty hassle free system, and it works... Same deal if you need to go to the emergency room or receive medical treatment in hospital. All the while, the private health insurance industry still thrives in parallel to it, for those who choose to pay for extra cover. Surely a similar system couldn't be too hard to implement without too much objection, and surely the country would benefit from it?

[Sabretooth78 808]

Obamacare has done little but to obfuscate the entire healthcare process and does nothing to address the fundamental problems of the preexisting "market-based" (using the term loosely; very little in this country is actually market-based) model.  Several government studies have also shown that it has actually driven costs up.  To make no mention of the rollout wherein they couldn't even provide a functioning website.

 

Even as a fiscal conservative, I have no qualms over a socialized healthcare system that actually works and works efficiently.  There are a few things that are more capably and equitably managed that way (surface infrastructure is another one IMHO).  That's not to say that there aren't fundamental deficiencies with that model either.  What we have, however, is probably more adequately described as a hybrid of some of the worst features of both models being run by a government that couldn't find its way out from under an arch.  It's about control, not public welfare.

 

Also worth noting that those who drafted that lovely little piece of legislation are exempt from it.  That ought to give you a dose of insight.

 

I've heard that health insurance used to only be necessary for expensive or catastrophic cases - similar to how you would invoke a homeowner's policy.  For instance, do you use auto insurance to pay for oil changes?

[A Nonny Moose 8,262]

The Canada Health Act is pretty simple.  It delegates health care to the provinces.  The provinces each have their own medical coverage paid for by taxes and a payroll levy.  Generally what is covered in Ontario is hospitalization, associated surgeries, medical office visits and that's about it.  Supplemental private coverage handles things like prescription drugs, dentistry, physiotherapy, and most other side issues.

 

In Ontario, seniors like myself are covered by the Ontario Drug Plan which demands a $100 annual deductible and $6.10 per prescription.  I have no dental or other coverage since I was mostly a contractor and could never manage to find a group that would take me on because I have five chronic conditions any of which might kill me or run into catastrophic expenses. 

 

Fortunately there are other things like the Assistive Devices Program (ADP) which recently kicked in $1,000 towards my hearing aids, and the Trillium Drug Program which used to pay for my late wife's rather catastrophic drug requirements.  If I was poor enough, the province would waive my deductible and change the co-payment to $2.00 per prescription.  Most pharmacists waive $2.00 of the prescription co-payment.  These expenses are a non-refundable tax credit on my income tax, but since I don't pay any tax nor get any refund, I don't need them.