Forums / Discussion / General

Since Mittens just did America a great service by announcing he isn't running, let's get a politics thread going. Share your political reviews, bash and flame other people's, tell political jokes, any political discussion is welcome, be it American, European, or whatever. Arguments are welcome encouraged- the entire point of this thread allowed as long as you follow rule 6 and keep it civil. Remember: In politics, everyone is wrong!

I'll start by saying… Is it me, or are American conservatives kinda dicks? Not all of them, mind you, and it's not necessarily an endorsement of the other spectrum (I'm pretty centrist.) There's those who separate themselves from the general opinion of those who share the title "conservative" by making their own mind up rather than agreeing with everything the GOP chokes out, and then there's the jackoffs who think white privilege is a myth, gay marriage is unconstitutional, Obama is the antichrist, still listen to AM radio and watch Fox News whenever they have more than 3 seconds to spare… And there is a lot more of them than you'd think.

Yep, the GOP are pretty much our American assholes. So, who will be the 2016 Presidential candidates?

Litterally all the republicans have to do, at this point ALL they have to do, is pick someone who isn't fucking insane. he could be the most bland blank person on the planet.

"what do you plan to do about the wage gap?"
"I think if we all work together we can fix the wage gap in the areas it shows up"

thats the most blank empty answer you could give.
if they just get someone to say those blank empty answers, they will win! thats all they gotta do!

but chances are they will get some insane person who is like
"Fuck dem mexicano people, and lets put more bibbles in the schewls!"

then they will continue to lose and lose and lose.

Blah blah centrist, blah blah against extremes… but yeah, pretty much the above.

The only time I'd ever vote is to assure that a psycho radical doesn't get in. Which, of course, one may argue should make me vote against Republicans for the rest of my life. And you'd probably be right… for now. But the way I see it, it may not be long before the reverse is true: As staunch across-the-board conservatism literally dies off and the increased popularity of far left-wing ideals (maybe) , the GOP becoming the more moderate party isn't unrealistic at all… if it doesn't just plain get dissolved and reformed into something fairly different, a la Whigs → Republicans in the 1850s and 60s.

I see voting as very important because if you don't vote, you're basically allowing whoever gets into office to get in no matter how insane they are. Not voting is sitting back and taking it in the ass in my opinion. And if you don't like either of the choices there's always the severely under-used "neither" option that can toss both the candidates aside in order for new, maybe better options to come forth if enough people choose it.

The thread title is way too vague, so what is referring to? American politics, British politics, Asian politics?

I would very much utilize this "neither option" on my ballot… if it was useful at all. But the fact is, there is no "popular vote number" requirement for an official to get elected, only an electoral college vote number one. Even if voter turnout sinks to something ridiculous like 5 percent, the end result will still be one of the two guys chosen in the closed-off, restrictive party primaries unless some really, really serious shit happens that causes a fairly large majority of people to abandon their allegiances.
If it was my choice, we'd overhaul the system. But of course it's not, and the combination of a lot of uninformed people lazily satisfied with the status quo and the current people in charge who really love the status quo make that unfeasible for a while.
However, that doesn't mean I'm completely apathetic about politics in the most general sense. In my opinion, the battles in the courts, especially the Supreme one, are very important to the future of the US.

In a way, I think voting when you wouldn't normally vote is worse. If you don't vote, it's probably for a reason… For example, if I was old enough to vote, I still wouldn't vote anyway, because 1. I don't know much about politics, nor do I really want to, and 2., I don't really know who to trust/choose. Whenever I see commercials trying to convince me to vote or not vote for someone… I don't really know which one to believe. They both seem pretty valid to me….
So if I were forced to vote, I would just vote for the person everyone else likes, or just vote neither because I wouldn't know what to do otherwise. And that could also allow crazy people into office.

Maybe that's just a dilemma exclusive to me, I dunno.

Share your political reviews, bash and flame other people’s, tell political jokes, any political discussion is welcome, be it American, European, or whatever.

Read the OP, faggot.

Anyway…
Hillary 2016

As of now, it looks like the GOP's top three possible candidates are Jeb Bush, Chris Christie, and Mike Huckabee. In other words, they're fucked.

Anyone down for some UK politics or is it just me?

I don't live there, but I know that if the UK leaves the EU it'll fuck a lot of things up. They're one of the major economic powers in the EU, without them nobody will follow the rules and it will eventually dissolve. I don't know enough to know whether or not the EU collapsing is necessarily a bad thing, however.

Sarah Palin has threatened agreed to run in 2016. I really really really want to see her win the primaries because that will be absolutely hilarious.

What worries me in politics is the rise of UKIP. It's not just their policies etc. but they have openly racist members and leaders who give a dishonest apology and they continue to get votes. It's not one off, it's frequent. Most of the voters I hear of are just old citizens who share some of those borderline racist opinions.

Also I would take politicians that would ask for a referendum and let the people decide whether the UK should leave the EU, not ones that has policies that are advocating just to leave the EU (as for my personal opinion, I'm not sure).

But then again what do I know I'm just a dumb teenager/young that doesn't know anything and everyone knows young people can't understand politics at all.

But do you know why the psycho radicals even manage to get on the ballot? It's because reasonable people – like you, and like Carlin – don't vote. Politicians are pragmatic, not ideological; they'll adopt any ideology that can get them elected. When only extremist voters are voting, politicians become extreme to get votes. That's why it's important for everyone to vote, to keep politicians in line.

@Crona

I don’t live there, but I know that if the UK leaves the EU it’ll fuck a lot of things up.
They’re one of the major economic powers in the EU, without them nobody will follow the rules and it will eventually dissolve. I don’t know enough to know whether or not the EU collapsing is necessarily a bad thing, however.

I've been taking Comp. Government recently, and it's been pretty surprising how overcomplicated and generally fucked up the EU is. Never before have I been happier to live in America.

Our center-right political party (National) curb stomped the lefties (Labour) in the 2014 elections. This is the first time in more than half a century that a single party has had sixty seats or more to itself; National was originally intending to enter into an alliance with the Conservatives (right-wing), but the latter party failed to gain any seats, and National now has enough influence over Parliament to rule alone anyway. Even the usual Labour + Green Party (socialist) combo won't save New Zealand's Left from being ass-whipped for the next three years.

---

About US politics – why the heck are the liberals happy that Mitt Rom-Tron isn't rebooting for Presidential run V3.0? The man is an absolute gaffe machine (though that's not the only machine-like characteristic he possesses, clearly), and would be a godsend to Clinton's campaign. Jeb Bush and Chris Christie share Clinton's moderate flavor without all of the baggage attached to the Clinton name, and would be far stronger contenders IMO.

Snickerway wrote:

But do you know why the psycho radicals even manage to get on the ballot? It’s because reasonable people – like you, and like Carlin – don’t vote. Politicians are pragmatic, not ideological; they’ll adopt any ideology that can get them elected. When only extremist voters are voting, politicians become extreme to get votes. That’s why it’s important for everyone to vote, to keep politicians in line.

That would absolutely make perfect sense if the system worked like I wish it would- i.e. parties hold virtually no power if they even exist at all, and the entire field of candidates get weeded out together no matter their political philosophy by the entire US voting population until a clear winner can be determined. But, again, what I think is the best idea doesn't mean shit towards the current or even near future reality.
Remember those "closed-off, restrictive party primaries" I mentioned? Yeah, those still exist. So in the end, the average Joe who hasn't sworn allegiance to the Dems or the Reps gets two options chosen for him by the people who have. And considering the… eh… "quality" of those groups, fuckheads getting the nod should come as no surprise. ("Third party" folks aren't even worthy of mention, as the dueling support bases combined are ten times too strong for one of them to even get a good shot.)
QED Carlin

Particle Mare wrote:

Chris Christie… without all of the baggage

0.9999…=1 said:

if it doesn’t just plain get dissolved and reformed into something fairly different, a la Whigs → Republicans in the 1850s and 60s.

I don't think you'll ever see another party collapse like that again, since the Whigs were basically a reaction party to Jackson and had the most controversial issue (slavery) looming. Once Jackson and his cohorts were gone, so was the point of the Whigs and they fractured due to slavery (as did pretty much every group--from Baptists to the Democrats).

I would very much utilize this “neither option” on my ballot…

That's what the third party choices are for.

>tfw the last third party candidate to win electoral college votes was George "segregation forever" Wallace.
We're doomed to forever have the Dems and Reps. I want to get off Mr. Fifth/Sixth Party System's Wild Ride!

Jimmy Lethal said:

Jeb Bush, Chris Christie, and Mike Huckabee

Jeb's got the donors swooning, which gives him a big advantage (muh superpacs), but he lacks that conservative edge that galvanizes right leaning voters and would keep the fucking Bush monarchy going. I honestly don't know much about him other than he was governor of Florida and rustled Kerry supporters' jimmies. No doubt the debates will shed absolutely nothing as his trainers have him pander to whatever group helps him win the primaries.

Christie's got that "no nonsense" mentality that could appeal to people sick of all the bullshit--but he suffers from the plausible deniability dilemma: either he's active in illegal/unethical activities, or he's fucking incompetent and has no idea what his subordinates are doing. I think the Bridgegate thing's going to sink him.

Huckabee has as much chance as he did previously. He's a fringe candidate that'll probably win the Iowa Straw Poll and then nosedive once the primaries start as the big money overwhelms his efforts.

I see a probable Rand/Rubio ticket forming--Rand's building the political connections, has the right wing voting support (he might even cause my individualism anarchist brother to vote), and Rubio fits the "help rally additional support from other groups" VP requirement like a glove. If only Rand was 20 years older and had a ton of experience, he'd actually be a pretty good candidate.

Hillary's got that "the king is dead, all hail the king" vibe to her. She's more of the same. She'll promise people the moon and do nothing about it (even though it's mostly on Congress to fulfill those promises). It's a little funny that if she didn't have those liberal "equality/progress/evil 1%" points to appease the left and instead spouted some "pro-business/war/small government" malarkey, she'd probably win the Republican ticket.

Laika said:

Anyone down for some UK politics or is it just me?

I'm jelly we don't have a UKIP over here. You also really need to get out of the EU before Greece begins to drag it down. Miliband is also hilariously bad and I'm saddened he'll (likely) be your next PM. Did the Labour Party seriously not have anyone else to pick?

Tchefuncte Bonaparte said:

Sarah Palin has threatened agreed to run in 2016.

Good. My sides are always ready for some more Rick "Department of Energy" Perry moments. People can circlejerk over how stupid conservative voters are all they want--at least we know a clusterfuck candidate when we see it--well, most of the time.

@0.9999…=1

It is my understanding that BridgeGate was found to have had nothing to do with Christie. I could be wrong, though… or perhaps one could be particularly cynical and argue that the average voter's attention span is to short for any significant number of people to have noted down that Christie was absolved. I have more faith in people than that, though.

Besides, any scandal involving Christie never blew up anywhere near as big as Benghazi did. Clinton's hawkishness will also likely come back to bite her on the ass, from both the Left and the (especially libertarian) Right.

@Particle Mare

If its any consolation, I didn't vote for National.

I hate red vs blue politics. It's an endless cycle of the same bullshit over and over. When voting boils down to two parties, those parties get comfortable. They don't need to stand for anything and give people a reason to vote for them because they will anyway thanks to the Us vs Them mentality. So out goes reasonable attempts at forming good government policies and in comes just defending your tribe

At least in NZ, I still have the illusion of choice and I vote for third parties just so I know I can actually choose a party of my own volition

I don't wholly agree with the Green parties policies. I just want to not vote for the two dominating parties, so I voted for Green. I want to encourage more competition in our voting polls so the leading parties put more effort into proving what makes them worth voting for, as opposed to just slamming their main rival all the time.

It is my belief that when parties realize how easily people can change their vote to someone else, the stronger they strive to come up with some real decent politics. So it is my hope that Green rises in power and shakes up the National and Labour power struggle (Of all 3rd parties, they are the closest one to doing that ). I want to see that, just to watch Labour and National squirm.

I know that its more reasonable to vote for the party that promises the best long term solutions for the nations future…and not just vote for the sake of keeping a balance

However, I fear that if NZ loses it's minor parties and becomes a purely two player game: The big players will stop making solutions and get tribal…and it will be too late to go back

I just don't want to NZ politics to end up like US politics

Compared to the US; all semblance of US democracy is non-existent as far as I can tell. There's hardly a choice. People are born democrat and stay democrat. People are born Repub and stay Repub. Half my family would disown me if I voted for the Dems. Both of those parties are pretty much the same party anyway on the political spectrum. Elections seem less like choice between governing power and more letting the other tribal state have a turn at putting a talking head in the white house.

I don't want to live in an oligarchy

Actually it's Germany that we can't do without. They're the major economic power in the EU.

I don’t know enough to know whether or not the EU collapsing is necessarily a bad thing, however.

Yes and no.

Yes, it's a bad thing. If the EU collapses we lose the free trade and open borders. We'll then have actually borders and import duties & taxes again. This would fuck up a lot of countries. The EU is basically a big collection of small countries, and not many of those would survive seperately. The cooperative system the EU brings to these seperate countries simply delivers a lot of pros in this global economy, pros that will hurt when gone.

People that blindly want the EU gone are retards and never look into those things.

BUT as I said: "Yes and no." A few years ago a few northern European countries considered just quitting with the EU and starting fresh on a smaller scale, with the more stronger economic powers (Brittain, Germany, Netherlands, Denmark, etc.).

And that is actually a fair option. The more southern European countries are really fucking up a lot and making it difficult for the rest of the EU. Greece dominates the fuckups by a landslide, but even countries like France and Spain aren't doing too well sometimes. But the Greece situation is especially bad now as Russia is giving them finances so of course Greece lets itself be taken raw by Putin now.

The EU has its pros and cons. But the pros still outweigh the cons as that is the global economy we live in. But to start with a new EU with fewer countries that are economically strong is certainly a considerable option. The EU simply took on more than it can handle, and we're now paying the price.

And it's basically Greece that will or will not set things in motion. We want Greece gone, but once they're gone it's highly possible they start a chain reaction and get other, economically strong, countries to leave. And that's a risk.

---

I’ve been taking Comp. Government recently, and it’s been pretty surprising how overcomplicated and generally fucked up the EU is. Never before have I been happier to live in America.

Tbh bro, as complicated as the EU may be sometimes, socially we're still miles ahead from you guys. Not even digging into seperate countries or subjects like health care.

@BSoD

2014 should have been my first time voting (nature decided to set my birthday a month too late). I would have cast my ballot for the Aotearoa Legalise Cannabis Party – unironically. It's a damn shame that they'll never really be anything more than a punchline in NZ politics, though, because the complacency of the two ruling parties in terms of their opposition to cannabis really pushes my buttons. I agree with your assessment of tribal politics, and will probably go for the Greens in 2017. I don't hate National, but I sure as hell don't want it in sole control of the government.

---

IMO, the differences between Labour and National are in many ways even smaller than the differences between the Dems and Repubs. We don't have much of an equivalent of the US's culture war going on – both parties support same-sex marriage, abortion and gun control laws are practically solidified and rarely challenged, and cannabis is, once again, universally unpopular – so social issues are almost never given the spotlight. Economic issues don't offer all that much variety either; NZ Labour (much like UK Labour) has long abandoned its socialist roots, so now we're left with two slightly different flavours of centrist capitalism.

I've always been somewhat more interested in US politics than NZ politics, mainly because of how much more interesting the former is. I would be paying a lot more attention to the NZ political climate if it were Greens vs Conservatives as opposed to Labour vs National.

---

@xTSGx

Considering the fact that UKIP's popularity is almost entirely derived from its opposition to the EU (which the US lacks an equivalent of), how exactly would such a UKIP-like party translate to the US political climate, anyway?

Tbh bro, as complicated as the EU may be sometimes, socially we’re still miles ahead from you guys. Not even digging into seperate countries or subjects like health care.

I'd say something about South African politics, but honestly, South African politics is like a bad stand up comedian who makes jokes without a punchline.
I mean, seriously, there's basically 2 parties that everyone votes for (The DA and The ANC) and it's largely color-based voting (ask a white person who they'll vote for in South Africa and it will almost certainly be the DA, vice versa for blacks and the ANC.) and the other political parties are just disappointing and sometimes frightening (the National Party and a party made by a local gangster in my area is on the polls).
So basically, I could care less about SA politics.

Anyone up for Australian politics? Because recently the conservative Liberal Party got voted out of two our states (Victoria and Queensland) which does not mean well for Abbott. Not to mention that his popularity has plunged and even Murdoch's media has turned against him:

Particle Mare said:

…how exactly would such a UKIP-like party translate to the US political climate, anyway?

I just want a third party to gain enough momentum to cause the big parties to get worried and actually do something productive. UKIP's causing a great deal of concern with both the Tories and Labour (Lib Dems are going the way of the dinosaur). Even if they don't get to pull out of the EU, they've stirred the pot enough to cause lasting changes. Much is said about the Libertarian Party but at best they're wind up like the Populists and get eaten by the Republicans, and at worst join the Green, Constitution, and Communist parties in obscurity.

>conservative liberals

Congratulations, Australia, one of your primary parties is a walking contradiction.

To be fair, political labels tend to hold noticeably different connotations in the rest of the world compared to the US. For instance, Libertarianism in America typically refers to the shiny "new" brand of right-wing anti-statism, in contrast with the radically left-wing "classical" definition of Libertarianism found pretty much anywhere else. The association of liberal with "centre-left" is also a relatively recent American creation; in many places it still holds a somewhat pro-laissez faire definition.

---

By the way, any Aussies here willing to explain to me why Julia Gillard, a childless atheist leftist, opposed gay marriage? That has always confounded me.

By the way, any Aussies here willing to explain to me why Julia Gillard, a childless atheist leftist, opposed gay marriage? That has always confounded me.

Having left wing political ideas doesn't stand in the way of homophobic bigotry?

It's just that she is very feminist (stuff like this in particular) among other things that would suggest a fairly liberal view of the world. I have spent a lot of time (more time than I would usually be comfortable with admitting) studying the arguments for and against gay marriage, so when someone like Gillard comes along, I find it especially interesting. The usual traditional family / Bible says so / gays just don't deserve equality arguments just don't seem like they would be espoused by someone who is childless, an atheist, and a left-winger respectively.

Basically, you're not wrong, but I'm still interested in the thought processes that may have taken place for Gillard to have reached her conclusions regarding gay marriage.