2012 U.S. Presidential Election

[Larks2242 251]

Well nothing more came from this election other then the continuing of status quo in Washington other then some tragic upsets in the senate, not much has changed, I would have thought the people wouldn't want to continue down the same path, but they made it clear they like it....

[AcmeSigns 97]

3. Unemployment is down, there has been 32 months of job creation. In the past month alone the US economy added 171,000 jobs.

Yes. But during that same month the economy lost 170,000 jobs. That's the statistic no one ever seems to want to mention because it then invalidates their precious 'talking points'.

[JayStimson 212]

3. Unemployment is down, there has been 32 months of job creation. In the past month alone the US economy added 171,000 jobs.

Yes. But during that same month the economy lost 170,000 jobs. That's the statistic no one ever seems to want to mention because it then invalidates their precious 'talking points'.

It also doesn't take into account the tens of thousands of recent college graduates that can't find jobs which means there are tens of thousands being added to the number of unemployed that are not counted. I would have thought by now there would be enough unemployed / underemployed people to make a change but I guess enough people are enjoying not working.

[Ion_Cannon 677]

3. Unemployment is down, there has been 32 months of job creation. In the past month alone the US economy added 171,000 jobs.

Yes. But during that same month the economy lost 170,000 jobs. That's the statistic no one ever seems to want to mention because it then invalidates their precious 'talking points'.

Where on earth did you get that from? The net gain of jobs in October was 171,000 and if this follows previous months, will likely be revised up over time. 578,000 more people entered the job market which is why the unemployment rate increased, but that's a good sign.

http://www.washingtonpost.com/blogs/ezra-klein/wp/2012/11/02/october-jobs-report-171000-new-jobs-suggest-a-steady-recovery/

[AcmeSigns 97]

The unemployment rate did indeed increase but that is not a 'good' sign. The increase means that the number of people unemployed went up, not down (from 7.8% to 7.9%).

It helps if you 1st understand what the formula is that the U.S. Department of Labor uses in their 'Jobs Reports'. The Bureau of Labor Statistics releases the U-3 Unemployment Rate results. If they released the U-6 results the true unemployment rate of 14.7% would be revealed. Why the difference? The U-6 data reflects all workers who are unemployed, underemployed, self-employed, part-time employed, not longer collecting unemployment benefits or have simply quit looking for work. I get my data from the DoL (Department of Labor) and various non-biased monetary sites. I avoid getting any data from sources such as CNN, The New York Times, HufPost, etc. as they only want to paint a 'pretty' picture.

I did find this interesting though. I never would have thought that The Huffington Post would release an article stating that just 125,000 jobs have been created in all of Obama's 1st term. http://www.huffingto..._n_1919533.html

I'll have to dig up where I found the 171,000 vs. 170,00 stat and come back with it. I'm off to have a life right now.

Sources:

http://www.zerohedge...oyment-rate-116

http://portalseven.c...oyment_rate.jsp

http://www.businessi...in-2012-2012-10

[A Nonny Moose 8,263]

The US electoral system is broken. I think there can now be now rose-coloured view of that.

To make matters worse, the Republican Party is captive to the extreme right conservatives. If you scratch a tea-party advocate you will probably find an isolationist and totally laissez-faire economic outlook (let the weak go to the wall).

To give the Democratic Party its correct appellation, they are technically left of centre Social Democrats.

Then there is an appalling vacuum in between. The US doesn't have a slightly right of centre conservative party, nor does it have an extreme leftist party. These parties may exist, but they are totally steamrolled by the traditional (when did that happen?) duumvirate. The voters are left with far too limited choices. The solution is to take both parties into Anti-trust as soon as possible and break them up. It would be quite an interesting circus to see some of these Sweet Old Boys run for cover.

The whole system is corrupt, so it is time to fish or cut bait.

[Jasoncw 12,060]

America has the same general range of ideologies as the countries with a billion parties (even if what is considered "moderate" is different), but they're simply held together by the two parties before the elections rather than by a coalition government after the elections.

Different sub-groups produce different candidates and during the primaries different candidates will emphasize different issues, in an attempt to appeal to their base within their own party and to appeal to the party as a whole. In parliamentary systems those different sub-groups are their own parties, they elect their own people, and then after the elections they join forces to form a majority government.

[Easy Bakes 253]

We need a party that's socially liberal but financially conservative.

[metarvo 712]

I guess the grand relief in all of this is the fact that it's over for now. I think Meg was spot-on here. People would rather vote for a known quantity than an unknown quantity, because the unknown has the chance to be worse than the known. As far as ignoring reality goes, I guess I can play SimCity to get some industrial zones if I get too beat down about the unemployment rate.

[Easy Bakes 253]

interesting historical note

this will be the first time we have had 3 consecutive 2 term presidents Since Jefferson-Madison-Monroe.

[LexusInfernus 908]

So the unemployment rate stabilized during one of the worst economic crisis in the history of world. But hey, lets give the current president crap for not solving a highly complex problem in just 4 years with a congress that tries to block him on almost every turn. Because solving such a crisis in just 4 years is a totally reasonable expectation. And with all the cries about him turning America into a socialist dump, lets ignore how that other president had to solve the biggest economic crisis ever: The New Deal policies. Though that guy had a World War to distract everyone from the fact that what he did was pretty socialist, and he had a congress that wasnt completely useless.

Actually, Obama being able to stabilize the unemployment rate is pretty spectacular. Just look at the charts of the Great Depression. It starts in 1929 and it hits its low only 1933. Thats 4 years of a crisis getting worse. This crisis started in earnest in 2008, Obama comes into office in 2009 and a few months later its pretty much stable.

[A Nonny Moose 8,263]

@jasoncw: That's a pretty piece of rationalization. Unfortunately, that's all it is. The two main parties are out of whack and need appropriate action to be taken. A couple of anti-Trust suits, even the threat, might do it.

I do not believe that 'splinter' parties should be subsumed in the primary elections. I also do not believe in primary elections at all. The election process in the United States takes far too long, and just pre-occupies people who should be doing other things for the benefit of the nation. The whole idea of a campaign for office that occupies more than two months is disgusting and unnecessary.

Parties should be able to name their candidates without all the state-by-state fooferaw. A simple caucus meeting per state to select delegates to the national convention should be sufficient without all the noisy apparatus and bull-roar of a primary election. All the posturing should be limited to the caucuses.

It should be reasonably hard to become a national party, but not impossible as it is now. A party that is certified as a national party should by funded, and not by private means.

Funding for candidates should be strictly limited, and plutocratic demonstrations of unconscionable wealth should go away. I should think that getting selected as a possible candidate from a state caucus should have a fiscal lid of, say $250,000 and presidential campaigns, limited to the period following the national conventions and therefore, starting in September, should be limited to 1,000,000 dollars per party. In a country of 300,000 or more people, if you can't raise these paltry sums you shouldn't be running.

Corporations my be persons before the law, but since they don't vote, corporate money must be excluded from all campaigns on penalty of disqualification of such candidates. It should be possible not only for Mr. Deeds to go to Washington, but also for him to become President.

One other thing to wish for is that politesse return to the campaigning lexicon.

  Edited November 8, 2012 by A Nonny Moose  

[Jasoncw 12,060]

You don't think there should be primaries? So you don't think the public should be able to choose who is running? There was a time when candidates were selected by party elites behind closed doors and that was reformed.

Do you think information about candidates is healthy for elections? If so, then you shouldn't mind the large amount of money that gets spent on campaigns. TV ads cost money, mailings cost money, volunteer organization costs money, campaign ground location's rent costs money, travel costs money. All of that money is spent by the campaigns to do their best to persuade as many people as possible that their candidate is the one to vote for. Without big campaigns voter turnout would plummet and so would informational engagement in politics. It's one thing to be concerned about how much money is coming from where, but I think the anti-campaign money sentiment is a knee jerk reaction.

If anything it's better to have a fundraising floor, rather than a ceiling, mainly for state and local level candidates. If the government set aside a modest amount of money for each candidate that would be on the ballot, it would ensure that all candidates would have enough money to run some kind of a campaign. My ballot this year was very long. Almost all of the candidates I had never heard of. When I tried researching them there was barely any information about them and many didn't even have websites. With government ensured funding they could have all gotten websites and done some direct mailings and other stuff to get the electorate aware of them so that people would have a clue who they're voting for.

The Dutch have a lot of parties. Go through the list and see if any of those parties don't represent groups within either of America's two parties. I think they fall very neatly within the two American parties (the main difference being that the EU is not a political issue in the US).

The People's Party for Freedom and Democracy, business oriented and permissive on social issues. Rockefeller Republicans in the US.

The Party for Freedom, right wing populist party, similar to the Tea Party in the United States.

ChristianUnion, is focused on anti abortion and gay marriage, and is equivalent to most of the religious right that comprises the Republican party.

The Labour Party, center left party, with ties to civil rights and labor unions.

Christian Democratic Appeal, hovers around the center. In the United States there is a segment of the Democratic party which is very Catholic and because of their religious beliefs are supportive of programs which help the poor, education, civil rights, and the environment, but who are against abortion and some other social issues.

The Socialist Party, a standard far left party (not actually socialists), which is present within the American Democratic party.

GreenLeft, focused on environmental issues and generally liberal on most other issues. Green energy/technology and the environment are major issues within the Democratic party.

D66, which appears to be a generic left party covering many standard Democratic issues.

Party for the Animals, focused on animal rights. PETA, vegetarians, etc. are important issues among some groups in the Democratic party.

50Plus. I can't tell what this party is about, but there is no party in the US dedicated specifically to old people. The issue of pensions and other retirement investments is a democratic issue.

And if you don't believe me, all you have to do is go and watch either party's national convention and watch them go through the list checking off the different groups. All of these different groups exist within the parties and they're fighting for prominence and influence within the parties just like the Dutch parties are fighting for prominence and influence within their government. Or you can go through and check off the list when they give State of the Union addresses.

[A Nonny Moose 8,263]

Now you see, I paid special attention to this years frolic. What I saw was a bunch of Sweet Old Boys putting together a slate that didn't meet the needs of the people in general, nor even in particular. The Republican Party is thoroughly fractured and needs renewal. The Democratic Party is far too complacent and infected with a second set of Sweet Old Boys as well.

If you want to look at a multiparty regime, you didn't have to go across the pond. A glance to the north would do. You would discover that parties come and go. At the moment the Parti Quebecois is going; the Liberal Party of Canada is in complete disarray having been given a comedownance by the electorate; and the Conservative Party of Canada is showing that it is unfit to rule with a majority. The New Democratic Party, which is a re-incarnation for about the third time from the Canadian Commonwealth Federation, is wondering what to do with its latest success by coming in second to form Her Majesty's Loyal Official Opposition. The Green Party of Canada after a long uphill effort have finally managed to elect one member (their leader) to the House of Commons. They are the new kid on the block and need environmental grease to keep their wheel turning. A few other parties appear on Federal and Provincial ballots every time, but never get very far because they are mostly from an unpopular fringe or very, very local.

And no, hym, I don't want to know that my local candidate had a molar repaired when he was in college because he had a particularly vicious strain of dental caries. Americans take far too prurient an interest in the private lives of their candidates. However, since the word candidate is derived from the Latin adjective candidus which means pure white, I suppose this is a literal interpretation. Maybe you can explain how someone with the morals of John F. Kennedy managed to get elected President?

With your system, spin seems to be everything. With ours, it is track record; as one Justin Trudeau will discover. We are not into dynasties.

[Meg 368]

Maybe you can explain how someone with the morals of John F. Kennedy managed to get elected President?

How did a gay man like James Buchanan manage to get elected President? Partly because social media didn't exist back then, partly because public figures were allowed to have semi-private lives. There was a non-spoken agreement among reporters and journalists that irrelevant personal information should be left out of it. But then someone decided it was relevant.

And, you'll notice, that Kennedy did not survive his term in office. People have been arguing for decades who shot him and why but the fact remains that someone did not like what he was doing and did not want him to complete his term.

[hym 358]

And no, hym, I don't want to know that my local candidate had a molar repaired when he was in college because he had a particularly vicious strain of dental caries. Americans take far too prurient an interest in the private lives of their candidates. However, since the word candidate is derived from the Latin adjective candidus which means pure white, I suppose this is a literal interpretation. Maybe you can explain how someone with the morals of John F. Kennedy managed to get elected President?

What did I say that inspired this? Since the issue was brought up, I will, however, quote a comment attributed to Thomas Jefferson: "When a man assumes a public trust, he should consider himself as public property."

As for Kennedy, I'm the wrong person to ask. My knowledge of him comes from history books. Furthermore, seeing as I was never fond of the man, I also don't consider him worth spending a lot of time over.

[A Nonny Moose 8,263]

Well, lad, I've been around for three British Monarchs and the Administrations in the U.S. since FDR. I really didn't take much notice until Truman (I was still in grade school in 1945). While we have had relative stability, it has been painful for me, and I am sure many of my compatriots, to see the dissolution of the American state into such a horrible deadlock. You now have something that Mr. Lincoln wasn't amused by: "A country divided against itself cannot stand".

[JayStimson 212]

"A country divided against itself cannot stand".

That was pretty much Obama's winning strategy. Gays against straights, rich against poor, black against white, women against men, corporations against workers, blah, blah , blah.

So ... all together now ... hi ho hi ho .... over the cliff we go.

[LexusInfernus 908]

"A country divided against itself cannot stand".

That was pretty much Obama's winning strategy. Gays against straights, rich against poor, black against white, women against men, corporations against workers, blah, blah , blah.

So ... all together now ... hi ho hi ho .... over the cliff we go.

Or you could see it as a failure of the Republicans to win these people over. Just look at the voting statistics. Romney overwhelmingly won the rich white male vote. To bad for him, America also consists of women, poor people, Latino's and African Americans. And the republicans managed to alienate all of those, in part because of their extremist views they take. If the Republicans want to win the elections, they need to become a party that is acceptable to more than just the rich white people. And that will mean getting rid of the crazies. No more Todd Atkins, no more Tea Party nutjobs, a more relaxed stance on immigration, reproductive rights, homosexuality, etc. Or else all the Democrats will have to do is find a reasonably charismatic person that can appeal to all these groups.

[A Nonny Moose 8,263]

And that makes my point on why the two party system is broken, thank you.

The nutbars belong in their own party. That way, when they are firmly rejected by the electorate, it won't necessarily mean the downfall of the party they've been kicked out of.

If the TEA party wants to start a new organization, i could suggest a name for them: The White Supremacist Party perhaps, or the KKK.

[LexusInfernus 908]

And that makes my point on why the two party system is broken, thank you.

The nutbars belong in their own party. That way, when they are firmly rejected by the electorate, it won't necessarily mean the downfall of the party they've been kicked out of.

If the TEA party wants to start a new organization, i could suggest a name for them: The White Supremacist Party perhaps, or the KKK.

Yes, or the Republicans can just kick them out of the Republican party and replace them with more moderate conservatives. I think the only reason they kept those idiots in the party was because they were perceived to be popular.

[Meg 368]

"A country divided against itself cannot stand".

That was pretty much Obama's winning strategy. Gays against straights, rich against poor, black against white, women against men, corporations against workers, blah, blah , blah.

So ... all together now ... hi ho hi ho .... over the cliff we go.

or maybe it's because Mitt Romney engages in unethical business practices that are bad for the country then pretends that he doesn't.

Just a thought . . .

[JayStimson 212]

The brain-washing of America by the left shows it's face here so very well.

Claims with no evidence. Slogans and symbols. Name calling par excellence.

Just what Adolf Hitler said. Give the people a symbol and a slogan and they'll follow you to the ends of the earth.

Manipulated feelings over-riding common sense and intellect. No independent thinking allowed.

Got to love it. America is so doomed.

[Sgt Pepper 864]

It wasn't "Gays against straights" just saying. We're not against heterosexuals in anyway. We're just against people that treat us like crap.

Sorry to stray onto that, I just felt like it really needed to be said.

But, everything that you said was on both sides. Slogans, claims with no evidence, and all that.

[AcmeSigns 97]

From what I remember, the TEA (Taxed Enough Already) Party is/was about fiscal responsibility (something many of us have to practice on a daily basis in RL). So being sensible is what defines a 'nutjob' or 'crazies' these days? Wow.

I'm with Jay on this. This nation got sold snake oil and they're downing it like there's no tomorrow (who knows...at this rate there may not be). Now Obama is claiming that his meager 1% win is a 'mandate' by the country that his fiscal ideas are the right ones. Seriously? Well, I guess maybe in his I'm-more-interested-in-being-a-celebrity-than-a-leader brain, they are. Everyone with more fiscal knowledge than I, including the non-partisan CBO (Congressional Budget Office), says that now is not the time to raise taxes as it will certainly lead us into another recession. But I'm certain that President Obama knows more than they do and we'll all be just fine. Time will tell.

As for the division in this country...once people started defining themselves with hyphens (African-American, Chinese-American, etc.) they began the nation's division. I come from immigrant stock (Italian, Irish, German) and am a second generation American. And that is all I have ever been...an American. When my ancestors came to this country the 1st thing they did was get a job. The second was to learn to speak English (in my Grandmother's case not all that well...but she did try) and the 3rd was to become a citizen. No hyphenations for them. Now, perhaps because they've been told so and now believe that they are 'different', many people feel the need to define themselves as 'something'-American. It's hard to work together when a good portion of the nation wants to be 'special' and treated as such.

[A Nonny Moose 8,263]

After the 'we won't budge' stance taken by the Republican leader of the House, Obama has called on Congress to get together to avoid the January crunch. He said, however, that a tax on very high incomes will be one of the items on the table. The chips are down , mesdames et messieurs: faites vos jeux.

[LexusInfernus 908]

The brain-washing of America by the left shows it's face here so very well. Claims with no evidence. Slogans and symbols. Name calling par excellence. Just what Adolf Hitler said. Give the people a symbol and a slogan and they'll follow you to the ends of the earth. Manipulated feelings over-riding common sense and intellect. No independent thinking allowed. Got to love it. America is so doomed.

Says the person who has been yelling doom and gloom simply because he doesnt like the guy that got elected. A guy that, if you look at the facts, didnt even do such a bad job considering the circumstances in which he had to work.

From what I know, the TEA (Taxed Enough Already) Party is/was about fiscal responsibility (something many of us have to practice on a daily basis in RL). So being sensible is what defines a 'nutjob' or 'crazies' these days?

Nah, it has more to do with their unwillingness to conduct actual politics, associating themselves with racists, homophobes, people like Sarah Palin and Michelle Bachman, their association with Christian Fundamentalists and all the nutjobs that come with that, the ridiculous birther movement and god knows what else. There is nothing wrong with fiscal austerity in itself, but if you associate yourself with all those other things as well, it is going to hurt your image as sensible human being at some point.

[AcmeSigns 97]

So, if I understand you correctly LexusInferus, guilt by association would be much like President Obama associating himself with the likes of the Reverend Wright, Bill Ayers & Bernadine Dohrn (members of the communist revolutionary group Weather Underground which bombed the Pentagon), Louis Farrakhan, Saul Alinsky, Khalid Al-Mansour? And the list goes on and on. Or are radical, communistic, terrorists OK to associate with because they somehow aren't, by your definition, 'nutjobs'?

And just out of curiosity, could you please show me one verifiable instance (video, link to non-biased website stating date & location, etc.) where the TEA Party is directly connected to any of your claims? From what I've seen their rallies are made up of regular folks with homemade signs (unlike the mass produced ones at any given left-leaning rally) where, oddly enough, there are never any arrests. And they probably leave the place cleaner than when they got there. I realize that you aren't in America. Perhaps you're slightly frightened/jealous by us having freedoms that you don't have?

Also, quite honestly, it sounds to me like your problem with Sarah Palin is that she believes in the right-to-life (I, being male and never having given birth, am pro-choice), God, the 2nd Amendment and that she can think for herself. Those are her beliefs. They are wrong...how? Can you name one...just one...person that has been harmed by Sarah Palin's beliefs?

Finally...yes, the whole 'birther' idea is idiocy but are those behind it any different than those that were so intent on Mitt Romney releasing his tax records? Same sort of lunacy...just a different subject.

[JayStimson 212]

The brain-washing of America by the left shows it's face here so very well. Claims with no evidence. Slogans and symbols. Name calling par excellence. Just what Adolf Hitler said. Give the people a symbol and a slogan and they'll follow you to the ends of the earth. Manipulated feelings over-riding common sense and intellect. No independent thinking allowed. Got to love it. America is so doomed.

Says the person who has been yelling doom and gloom simply because he doesnt like the guy that got elected. A guy that, if you look at the facts, didnt even do such a bad job considering the circumstances in which he had to work.

From what I know, the TEA (Taxed Enough Already) Party is/was about fiscal responsibility (something many of us have to practice on a daily basis in RL). So being sensible is what defines a 'nutjob' or 'crazies' these days?

Nah, it has more to do with their unwillingness to conduct actual politics, associating themselves with racists, homophobes, people like Sarah Palin and Michelle Bachman, their association with Christian Fundamentalists and all the nutjobs that come with that, the ridiculous birther movement and god knows what else. There is nothing wrong with fiscal austerity in itself, but if you associate yourself with all those other things as well, it is going to hurt your image as sensible human being at some point.

Typical. Make it personal to avoid the issue. Always with the emotional manipulation. Proving my point once again.

It has nothing to do with whether or not I like the guy. It's the fiscal policy that's the issue. Borrowing from one credit card to pay the interest on another credit card is a sure sign something is really wrong. What do you think Washington is doing every time they raise the debt ceiling to avoid default ? And while it should be intuitively obvious even to the most casual observer. I'll state it anyway: This practice is not sustainable. Paying for all these social programs by borrowing money year after year leads us where ? Further and further in debt. It's hard for me to believe, but reality is what it is, that anyone could be so mathematically challenged that they are unable to see this practice is not going to work.

BTW, don't forget to add some additional name calling to the next response. It adds so much value to the discussion.

[LexusInfernus 908]

Typical. Make it personal to avoid the issue. Always with the emotional manipulation. Proving my point once again.

It has nothing to do with whether or not I like the guy. It's the fiscal policy that's the issue. Borrowing from one credit card to pay the interest on another credit card is a sure sign something is really wrong. What do you think Washington is doing every time they raise the debt ceiling to avoid default ? And while it should be intuitively obvious even to the most casual observer. I'll state it anyway: This practice is not sustainable. Paying for all these social programs by borrowing money year after year leads us where ? Further and further in debt. It's hard for me to believe, but reality is what it is, that anyone could be so mathematically challenged that they are unable to see this practice is not going to work.

BTW, don't forget to add some additional name calling to the next response. It adds so much value to the discussion.

Im not calling you names, so please stop saying that I do. I am however pointing out the simple fact that for the last few posts in this thread youve been saying that America is doomed, no worse, that Western civilization is doomed.

Okay, as for paying of debts with more debts. I agree, its a silly system, yet everyone does it, not just the US, no every country in the world has debts and pays them off with more debts. I also agree that the US should definitely start reducing its debts, because its getting an issue. I however dont see what this has to do with Obama. He knows just as well as you do that he needs to start reducing debts and that means he needs to start cutting into stuff.

Acme, here are some links

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Tea_Party_movement#On_issues_of_race.2C_bigotry_and_public_perception (scroll down one section for an example of Tea Party induced vandalism)

I think that covers the racism claim.

Then there is the claim about Bachman. Well she did organize the Tea Party Caucus in congress I believe. But to be fair, the Tea Party itself wasnt to happy about it. Still, it shows how politicians like Bachman try to get in favor with Tea Party supporters, thus establishing a link between the Tea Party and Bachman and similar politicians as well as the religious right, which includes the homophobes.

I realize that some of the Tea Party people also dont like the fact that their movement attracts a certain kind of people. But it should give you some thought that if your movement attracts a certain kind of people, there might be something wrong with your movement. The same is true for Obama, however, he has managed in a much more successful way to clearly distance himself from any kind of extremists. Im sorry, but I simply cant say the same for the Tea Party.

And as for Palin, no, I dont dislike her because she is pro life, although that doesnt do her any favors in my view. Its more that I think shes kind of a ditz who is only popular because she knows what people want to hear, which makes her a populist. I dislike politicians who appear to lack the knowledge, and I dislike them even more if they are populists as well.