Political Discussions

    Share

    Ratix240sx





      : Male
     Rep0

    Age: : 30
     Posts: : 7

    Re: Political Discussions

    Post by Ratix240sx on July 19th 2012, 6:40 pm

    I dunno but so far it looks like Romney is getting pummeled. It's still early but....he's not looking good....and it doesn't help that he's not a particularly strong candidate...
    avatar
    sth88



      : Male
     Rep0

     Posts: : 7

    Re: Political Discussions

    Post by sth88 on July 20th 2012, 7:47 pm

    I like politics (particularly during election season), so I'll post my first (non-introduction) post here. There is a wall of text approaching, just so you are warned, and for the sake of disclosure I consider myself to be very conservative.

    At this point I'd definitely give Romney an edge over Obama, even if not a huge one. Obama has spent over $100 million over the last couple months putting up largely uncontested negative ads against Romney in swing states, seeking to define Romney before Romney can define himself; after all that time and money, however, the polls (both national and state-level) show the race still tied, the same as it was before Obama's barrage. He's only got about one week to change this before everyone tunes out politics during the Olympics, and after that the Republican National Convention is right around the corner.

    There's several reasons why these attacks haven't worked. First, polls consistently show that people are more concerned with the state of the economy than with Mitt Romney's tax returns, his offshore accounts, or his record at Bain Capital, and Obama's approval ratings (both overall and especially on the economy) are abysmal, consistently below the 50% threshhold typically thought to be necessary for an incumbent to stand a good chance for re-election. These questions about Mitt's past aren't the issues that currently move the needle for voters.

    Second, the heavy duty negative ads have had a detrimental effect on how people view Obama as a person. Typically, a majority of Americans have looked favorably upon Obama in this regard, even if a majority didn't always agree with his policies. But since Obama has gone heavily negative, more people have begun to view him as just another politician; his favorability numbers are starting to dip beneath 50% in some polls. This negative tone is particularly stark with voters as they remember how positive and uplifting his rhetoric usually was four years ago.

    Third, and most importantly, most people simply aren't paying attention to politics right now, and they won't until the parties' conventions in August. Swing state voters see a lot of ads, but they tend to tune them out; most people probably don't know enough to have an opinion on Mitt Romney yet. This means that Mitt Romney has more room to improve in the polls than Obama does, since Obama has been a known quantity for the last four years. Obama needed to bury Romney before Romney had a chance to take advantage of this, and Obama has failed to do so despite a vast spending advantage.

    Now heading into the important months of the campaign, Romney has plenty of money to spend (especially if he continues to outraise Obama as he has the past couple months) and the opportunity to define himself to a public that is not too happy with the current president.
    avatar
    TrueBlue52



      : Male
     Rep5

     Posts: : 369

    Re: Political Discussions

    Post by TrueBlue52 on July 27th 2012, 11:05 pm

    Conserves = Runny jam made with hole fruit.

    the -tive at the end of the word just changes it into an adjective showing the ability to perform the activity presented by the word.

    therefore, a Conservative is...??? stikcy

    Re: Political Discussions

    Post by Daniel the Hedgehog on September 6th 2012, 9:20 pm

    To be "Conservative" means you want stuff to stay the way it was meant to be, while being "Liberal" means you want to go against what you see as "traditional." You are thinking of "Preserves," TrueBlue.
    The author of this message was banned from the forum - See the message
    avatar
    Yioibon


      : Male
     Rep3

     Posts: : 638

    Re: Political Discussions

    Post by Yioibon on September 27th 2012, 2:32 am

    Mly wrote:Wrong. Conservative = more strict regulation; liberal = less strict regulation. Which is why "apply liberally" means "just put however much you please."
    Conservative/Republican = Some Regulations but, smaller government control with more traditional American, Christian values and a leniency toward businesses (allowing growth). They are against immigration and global healthcare.

    Liberal/Democrat = Stricter regulations on everything they disagree with, gun control, big business, and they prefer big government controlling everything for them. They also control about 96% of the media, support diversity as well as immigration even if it is illegal. Gay marriage is also highly supported by Liberals.

    Most Dems/Libs are college kids, feminists, homosexuals, union organizers or former hippies as well as immigrants. A majority are also on welfare while living in low income households. Most of the college kid Liberals major in fields such as: Creative Writing, Fine Arts, Journalism, Liberal Arts, Theater Arts, Women's studies, Etc.

    Most Republicans are middle aged, hard working upper-middle class Americans, A majority either work, are business owners, are serving our country or going to school to learn a craft such as Business Management, Computer Science, Economics, Engineering, Etc.
    avatar
    Fikachu



     Rep1

    Age: : 25
     Posts: : 23

    Re: Political Discussions

    Post by Fikachu on June 15th 2013, 12:11 pm

    I don't consider myself as part of the US Democratic Party or US Republican Party
    avatar
    84





      : Male
     Rep33

    Age: : 67
     Posts: : 1876

    Re: Political Discussions

    Post by 84 on July 4th 2013, 9:26 pm

    Fuc'n Obbamo tellin' us wich childrin we can'n cant rape.

    Re: Political Discussions

    Post by preadatordetector on July 29th 2014, 1:11 am

    There should be an entire forum category for this stuff (and other possible flame wars.). Maybe it would be called Lava Shelter due to a pun on "flame war" and the military-sounding name of "shelter", and the fact that it makes powerful combat robots.

    Speaking of which, I have set up a political alignment spectrum that I would be using in a game in the future (planning on going into game design) and I want to see what kind of reaction it would get. (Is it accurate?)

    Chaos vs. Order
    **Chaos:
    +Less gun control
    (Meaning more freedoms and protection, in some points of view.)
    -Official law enforcement
    (Probably making crimes such as rape and robbery more frequent.)
    *Believes in personal freedoms being put first. Advocates expression.
    **Order:
    +Official law enforcement
    (Meaning less rape, less crime, and stable policies.)
    -More gun control
    (Meaning less freedoms and protection, in some points of view.)
    *Believes that crime prevention is top priority. Advocates survival.

    Trade vs. Localism
    **Trade
    +Better transportation policies and immigration and lower military presence (depending on other alignments...)
    -Local businesses and the environment suffers
    *Believes that good relationships and trade between countries are the secrets to the success of one.
    **Localism
    +Better for local businesses or the environment (depending on other alignments...)
    -High transportation taxation or military presence or immigration fees (depending on other alignments...)
    *Believes that using local resources leaders could do more good than if using outside assistance.

    Equality vs Rightism
    **Equality
    +Better lifestyle for poorer citizens, and easier to obtain health insurance and education.
    -May rack up debts, or cause people to get higher taxes overall.
    *Their beliefs are obvious. Next line, please.
    **Rightism
    +Lower taxes and tries to clear out debt people and the government have...
    -But neglect healthcare services and education, and may lead to crowded classrooms and medical bills.
    *They believe that the people and countries should avoid financial trouble as much as possible.


    Last edited by preadatordetector on July 30th 2014, 10:51 am; edited 1 time in total
    avatar
    Sketch Style



      : Male
     Rep2

    Age: : 23
     Posts: : 580

    Re: Political Discussions

    Post by Sketch Style on July 29th 2014, 2:30 pm

    So after a few years, Obama has been re-elected, and now is just dodging questions. Now I agree with the OP, radio and TV are not reliable. Especially news outlets like Fox News and the oft-overlooked CNN. So as I try hard to pay attention, we are now shifting towards some awkward and tragic events.

    So not long ago, Obama had proposed to send troops to Syria. Now the minor problem was that he is planning to send troops to support the side of a civil war that associated with the side we combated against in the Afghan war. Not only that, he wanted to do so because Syria began using chemical weapons. So that was confusing since we were going to combat a civil war because they were using weapons Obama didn't like. Okay...

    My main problem was the fact he was going to send troops. That's the key words:

    Spoiler:
    Send troops...

    Why send troops after spending much of the campaign promising to end the war? That's a major contradiction. You can't spend years telling me you're going to end the war and bring troops home, and then send them out to yet another pointless skirmish. Thankfully, he was denied.

    So one even I wanted more attention to go to was the chaos ensuing in the Ukraine. I can give the rebels their credit, but it seems Putin might as well become Stalin-light with his aggressive "solution" to the situation. Alas, it seems to have simmered, but I believe a better justice could've occurred.

    So, on a personal note, I've noticed some internal American issues going on the people. Things that are bothering me:

    • The "War For Justice"

    • Which is actually disguised as "The War For Equality"

    • The Media

    • Increasing inflation


    So I'll begin with the first two bullet points: The "War For Equality" and the "War For Justice." Both are one in the same, and the former is just a likable title for it. The "war" consists of protest groups that feel it's their duty to force business, religions, and people to match their opinions, beliefs, and ideologies.

    I'll start with how former Mozilla CEO Brendan Eich was forcibly pushed into stepping down, because of a "scandal" about him donating money to an anti-gay cause caught fire.

    Article here: http://www.theverge.com/2014/4/3/5579516/outfoxed-how-protests-forced-mozillas-ceo-to-resign-in-11-days

    I deem this to be unfair, and a violation of his rights. You can argue that donating to an anti-gay cause is just as much a violation, but I refute that in the fact that a "cause" can't do anything. A "cause" is just an audible "voice." Not an official action. Mr. Eich should not have been forced out of his position due to a personal belief that had nothing to do with, and did not represent the company itself.

    Another altercation involved former L.A. Lakers owner Donald Sterling, in which he was given a permanent, life-time ban from NBA stemming from a simple racist comment.

    Article here: http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2014/04/26/donald-sterling-racist_n_5218572.html

    This is an unfair, extreme measure placed because of "intolerance." The NBA is probably full of players, currently playing, who have committed outrageous, infallible crimes, and yet Mr. Sterling gets a life-time ban over a racist comment. He has lost his franchise, will never be able to work for the NBA again, and can't even attend an NBA game because of this.

    Article here: http://espn.go.com/los-angeles/nba/story/_/id/10857580/donald-sterling-los-angeles-clippers-owner-receives-life-ban-nba

    This is, again, an extreme measure taken over words that fade away. Whatever happened to "sticks and stone can break my bones, but words can never harm me?" Just a damned lie. My grandfather had a short answer to this situation: It's none of their business. I agree, that comment was none of anyone's business, and it shouldn't have earned such a punishment. Now, as a disclaimer, I do not support racism in any way. I believe that this "no tolerance" should be aimed where tolerance shouldn't exist.

    My last tangent involving this is the current wave of feminism, or as I like to call it, "feminazism." I'm all for beneficial equality to women. I believe they deserve just as much a chance as men at anything involving labor, salaries, opportunities, education, and military. What I don't approve of are women forcing their belief in deserving more benefits, opportunities, and rights just because they're women. I don't believe anyone deserves more, no matter the gender, color, size, or belief. However, it should be accepted, nor tolerated that violence be used for a belief.

    See here: http://www.lifesitenews.com/news/horror-mob-of-topless-pro-abort-feminists-attacks-rosary-praying-men-defend

    Is that really necessary?! Are you trying to fight for rights, or get yourself sent to prison?? This shouldn't be acceptable; it's a stain on what "feminism" truly is.

    ---

    I have no need discussing the Media, since it's always exaggerating the political nonsense to gain blind followers. The only media that's correct, sadly, is sports media. Even then, there's nonsense including the "gay revolution" involving the NBA and NFL. Seriously, I can't even follow politics because of outlets like Fox News and especially CNN.

    ---

    Increasing inflation ties to the same point I brought up earlier about Obama sending troops. It was the war in Afghan that brought inflation, more wars will do the same damned thing. Food prices are going up, college tuition is going up, and now there are petitions to raise minimum wage to $15. Fifteen dollars?! Look at what the effects are:

    http://www.ijreview.com/2014/06/144019-results-seattles-minimum-wage-hike-deserve-big-fat-told/

    I'm praying this doesn't occur in many other states. Inflation will have to sky rocket just to allow more people to get hired. I'm already teetering on the edge of my employment as is, and I don't need this to happen.

    ---

    Well now, that concludes my current thoughts. Now, I'm looking for intelligent conversation, and I want to hear your thoughts.

    Re: Political Discussions

    Post by preadatordetector on July 29th 2014, 10:21 pm

    Yo, Sketchy. I think that you might want to read this...
    Look at Sandra and Woo, look up "97 points" and keep reading on to the next comics...
    Go all the way to the part where they stop mentioning Dorothy Cambridge. Don't stop at the fanart.

    Unfortunately, a lot of the satire in there can end up poking fun at a few... fundamental rights. Read with caution, republican. (Sorry if it sounds offensive, but by reading your comments I seen that you are at risk of going... a little bit reactionary if you read this...)

    Speaking of which, Sonic is a bit of a eco-anarchist. I only said a bit... He isn't an extremist.

    **Also for the minimum wage hike, there are reasons why people implemented that.
    -Some people are not exactly the best at logic and stuff, and usually have to get payment through physical labor or tedious, long and tiring jobs.
    -Such as being a clerk. Long hours, little pay, and all you usually do is scan an item across a bar code reader. Usually. Sometimes you have to do it faster due to a line building up, and then you have to resist psychological stress.
    -Then there is the job of the janitor. You clean up other's filth. So, obviously, many people are getting tedious, stressful and probably even disgusting jobs. They want more of a reward for their efforts, but are bound to the minimum wage because of their intellectual shortcomings.

    Now you know the basic mindset of the communists.

    Not to worry about me, I am a green party advocate myself, but I refrain from supporting them if they become ineffective at their promises, (such as a high carbon tax but with little tariff implementation to support local suppliers that use up less fuel to bring stuff to the grocer's) start threatening our freedoms, (sometimes people can get into small parties and corrupt them) or threaten the dignity of humanity (no examples yet...). I try to avoid extremes myself.

    Sponsored content

    Re: Political Discussions

    Post by Sponsored content