ON THE…
GRAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAVE
And that’s fine, people should live in countries whose politics they agree with. (I personally enjoy the safety net of socialism, but some people prefer the freedom of big risk/reward to safety I suppose - like turtle or rushdown in a fighting game)
The problem with the US is that it is so large and opinions are very different throughout. Small countries like mine are like a US state.
And most of the states (and here my knowledge gets very spotty) seem to often know what they want, the problem is when they all have to agree on one nationwide thing. In the end, half the country will be unhappy.
If the states were countries, some of them would probably lean a lot more left or a bit more right. And generally be happier with their government. But to have any chance to affect anything, they have to settle for voting for one of these two main big parties - the only two big enough to afford nationwide campaigning perhaps.
This post I admit may be a bit much for my US politics knowledge to support, but it’s a thought.
the majority of what is on your typical voters ballot will be things unique to their state but yes national matters get dicey
Where is the OP? Props for bringing back the muscle shirt. I need to make me some cutoffs one of these days.
OP should be banned for falsely proclaiming seal’s death.
and who gives a fuck what some random parents think about some shit they gleamed off the news?
Read through first few posts and skimmed through rest.
Only thing I got from this thread was the shits.
And giggles.
But mostly shits.
BRB bathroom.
politics in the US have become retarded plain and simple. over a long period of time we nationally went through this process where the right wing took a step to the right and said “compromise with us” and the left took a step to the right to stand where the right was… to find the right had simply moved the goalposts… until we reached the state that we are in today where Obama the democratic president is actually a center right conservative, yet is called a far left liberal because the right wing of our country is so far off the deep end that they would look at reagan’s policies and scream socialism (this has actually happened… more than once).
the american political landscape has shifted so far to the right over the past few decades that i seriously question if Reagan could get elected as a democrat… or if he would simply be too liberal for even that.
I ellipsised you because you were suggesting that people are more aware or less biased because they know less, which I don’t particularly agree with.
Secondly, international opinion on domestic (US) events and politics is not automatically objective because it is removed, it is only subject to different biases. It cannot be assumed that the survey respondents are any more informed, or less motivated by self-interest. Also, I’m willing to bet most of the people polled know almost nothing about Mitt Romney- especially relative to what they know about Obama. So for anyone who wasn’t paying attention during the presidential debates, I would assume the results have a lot to do with simple popularity.
You point out that you don’t think of America as having a leftist party, but that says as much about your standards of what is leftist than it does about US politics.
Racism is not solely the province of White people. If you’re going to cite racial prejudices or biases as an issue for people supporting Romney, you would have to apply to the same to Obama, especially if we’re talking about an international poll.
Also, you yourself characterize Romney as a white dude running for an extremely right wing party (true by your standards, but not American standards, which is relevant to the example you were stating). It stands to reason that there are people with biases against that sort of thing (or what they assume that sort of thing is) in western Europe and obviously also the Middle East.
tl;dr:
Even people who may be following along don’t always know what they’re talking about.
I find that most partisans actually do the reverse of what Scarborough (who’s act I’m not familiar with) was suggesting, because people love to engage in doomsday scenarios.
If Romney wins, it will be some sort of vague economic slavery for everyone, and women won’t have rights anymore. If Obama wins, it will be the end of the country because of his various policies, and if he loses, minorities will riot in the streets. Etc.
But with regards to Scarborough’s point and the TYT video (who’s act I am familiar with, and generally can’t stand), here’s something from Nate Silver’s blog at the New York Times, the statistician/polling guy in question:
tl;dr Obama has better odds of winning because even if he doesn’t win the popular vote, he can still win the electoral vote, whereas Romney needs to win both. Because they are more or less tied in terms of the popular vote and such a tie means that Obama wins, he has an important advantage.
But, see the bolded sentence, above: these seemingly small percentage points make a big difference, and Romney only needs to come out ahead in three “battleground” states to change things dramatically (note that those points are out of date, and are now 2.9/0.3/4.2 for those states). So while it may seem likely that Obama will win the election, I think that it is an entirely reasonable statement to say that the election is close, which was Scarborough’s point.
The black voter turnout was record-breaking, last election. And a recent poll showed Obama’s approval rating among blacks was 92%, nearly double his overall approval rating.
Let’s not forget that racism is playing a part on both sides.
Or are we to make a distinction between white/black pride and racism? Seems they stem from the same place.
Hmmm the black percentage for democratic presidents has always been high.
Well except when we go waaay back
idk if i would call that pro-obama racism so much as the republican party has made it a point to villianize minorities for a long time, is it really a surprise to ANYONE that the gop polls horridly among minorities? hell one poll this year had mitt at 0% approval rating among blacks… the gop has spent a long time riding out the wave of politics of hate… well eventually those minorities are large enough that you have to compete with them if you ever want a chance of election.
Conversely, I don’t like jelly beans.
Give me examples of the GOP vilifying minorities. I’m not refuting that it has occurred. Rather, I’ve always wondered where the notion comes from, that republicans hate minorities.
This year alone, you have republicans saying stupid shit about slavery, multiple dumbass sayings about rape and pregnancy and god, peanuts or some shit thrown at black reporters outside the republican convention. That is just off the top of my head right now.
First motherfucker who says he’s gonna repeal nafta , Gatt and cafta, I might start taking days off from work to wave signs for his ass. As well as vote multiple times for him. You can’t sell your country down the river like that and NOT expect what we have now…Willy.
They go about it in “sneaky” ways, in quotes because they’re often amazingly transparent. The Southern Strategy worked quite well, so much so that all you have to do to make half the country foam at the mouth is tell them that a single black mother is getting food stamps. You don’t have to say black, but it’s implied; a white woman on welfare would just remind them of their own mothers. The Willie Horton ads are another example. While the Republicans were right that he should never have been furloughed, they took full advantage of the fact that he was a scary black man in their ads. More overt examples from the 50s and 60s obviously aren’t hard to find, and they’re not as ancient as people think. Fifty years is a lifetime to a 50 year old and an eternity to a 20 year old, but it’s only two generations. This is another technique, by the way. “Civil rights were achieved in the 60s, what’s taking them so long?!”- we’ve all heard it, as did Du Bois 110 years ago (with civil rights replaced by the end of slavery, of course). The argument wasn’t hard to pick apart then, but that was then and we’re much better today, you may say. Just another technique- the “things are different now” excuse, which cleverly weakens any attempt to apply historical knowledge to gain an understanding of present events by appealing to our vanity of being more enlightened than our primitive ancestors. Then they get away with it by screaming “reverse-racism” at anyone who points out the obvious psychological manipulation being pulled off on so large a scale. Clearly, not everyone who is against welfare is racist, nor does the Republican party have a monopoly on racism, but it’s there.
The LeBron James Vogue cover is a non-political (I’ll draw extra attention to this word so I don’t get any responses calling me an idiot for thinking this is a Republican ploy), relatively mundane, example of the same phenomenon. Unless the photographer comes out and says he was recreating the movie poster, the undeniable similarities will be chalked up to coincidence, and noticing them will be called playing the race card.
What would you consider Lindsey Graham saying that the GOP wasn’t generating enough angry white guys to stay in business for the long term?
You are missing my point but if you are just trying to shoot and make me look stupid go ahead. You weren’t catching my drift. What i am trying to conclude here is I don’t like anyone candidate here
i.e. Anarchy ftw
Also, I do have spick and spining to clean up. For someone who has never taken an economic, governing, or us history class before, I don’t completely know what I am . I do realize this but that doesn’t mean you have to rub my face in my own shit. Dogs know their shit is shit and they resist when you try to rub it in.
I am a young’n and let me be stupid like the other half of stupid americans.
The GOP condemned the actions of the peanut throwing people, but it never should have happened. The fact that it happened when and where it did cast republicans in a bad light. So too, did that idiot talking about the great gift of slavery. I suppose these are the things that stick out to people.
And that makes sense. It’s much the same way someone hears Christian or Muslim and thinks of the extremists that belong to either group.
Being from the northeast, I don’t see a lot of what other people experience on a daily basis. When I think of republicans, I think of people like Lincoln, not people that adamantly opposed affirmative action and things like that. After asking the question, I did some research. I can see where people are coming from.
It’s hard to separate “south” and “racism” in my mind, even if that isn’t just. I see a whole bunch of red states down there.
We’re not all bad. I’d wager not even most of us are.