User Avatar Image

US Elections 2012

posted by JordyLicht on - last edited - Viewed by 371 users

Hi guys,

I have no idea if you're interested in politics at all, if you're thinking about voting, etc.
The major consensus in Europe seems to be: why would anyone in their right mind vote for Mitt Romney, being a Mormon, anti abortion, etc.
I admit I am a total n00b when it comes to American politics, so I'm sure I'll say dumbass things, but I just wanted to see if anyone can shed some light on this topic.
Back in 2004, people outside the US (and probably inside as well) raised their eyebrows and just couldn't believe Bush was chosen for a second term. I believe this will probably happen again if Romney is elected... a big WTF from across the pond.

32 Comments - Linear Discussion: Classic Style
  • They are both total fakes. I hope neither of them wins.

  • @Noname215 said: They are both total fakes. I hope neither of them wins.

    Good job, you don't count.

  • @Noname215 said: They are both total fakes. I hope neither of them wins.

    All politicians are fakes, fakes that market themselves either to voter a or voter b.

    I am yet to meet a sincere politician and am very much of the mindset there is no such thing, no matter how good their intentions may have been when they stepped into the game.

  • @JedExodus said: All politicians are fakes, fakes that market themselves either to voter a or voter b.

    I am yet to meet a sincere politician and am very much of the mindset there is no such thing, no matter how good their intentions may have been when they stepped into the game.

    Nobody is sincere. It's the human race, everyone lies, is deceitful or at best, can't tell the whole truth.

  • @JedExodus said: All politicians are fakes, fakes that market themselves either to voter a or voter b.

    I am yet to meet a sincere politician and am very much of the mindset there is no such thing, no matter how good their intentions may have been when they stepped into the game.


    This. Power corrupts. If you're trying to get more power, you apparently want to be corrupted.

  • @Haggis said: This. Power corrupts. If you're trying to get more power, you apparently want to be corrupted.

    e4fbd201.jpg

  • @DAISHI said: Nobody is sincere. It's the human race, everyone lies, is deceitful or at best, can't tell the whole truth.

    We sorta need somebody better than Joe Bloggs sitting in the White House. Sure you and I are dishonest shitheads, fair play, we're human and that's normal. The man in charge of the most powerful nation on Earth shouldn't be and cannot be.

    @DAISHI said: This. Power corrupts. If you're trying to get more power, you apparently want to be corrupted.

    Could never put it better myself, the very desire to be a politician should disqualify you from ever being one.

  • @JedExodus said: We sorta need somebody better than Joe Bloggs sitting in the White House. Sure you and I are dishonest shitheads, fair play, we're human and that's normal. The man in charge of the most powerful nation on Earth shouldn't be and cannot be.

    Could never put it better myself, the very desire to be a politician should disqualify you from ever being one.

    The very nature of our political system illustrates the fact that the founding fathers believed no one to be really good. Since all men are inherently self interested, and because self interests can be deemed 'good' only by those who fall on the side of a particular politician and 'bad' by those opposed, it's best to set opposing self interests against each other. Thus arises the House-Senate balance as well as the general system of checks and balances.

  • @DAISHI said: The very nature of our political system illustrates the fact that the founding fathers believed no one to be really good. Since all men are inherently self interested, and because self interests can be deemed 'good' only by those who fall on the side of a particular politician and 'bad' by those opposed, it's best to set opposing self interests against each other. Thus arises the House-Senate balance as well as the general system of checks and balances.

    Aren't you guys first-past-the-post? Presumably (and please correct me if i've got this wrong as I haven't studied US Politics since school) that leaves you with a strong government and plenty of representatives to tow the incumbents party line in the house? And if so, how are checks and balances any real benefit?

  • @JedExodus said: Aren't you guys first-past-the-post? Presumably (and please correct me if i've got this wrong as I haven't studied US Politics since school) that leaves you with a strong government and plenty of representatives to tow the incumbents party line in the house? And if so, how are checks and balances any real benefit?

    The fact that the executive seat (president) is usually run by a different party from the legislature (Senate and House) means it usually forces compromise. The U.S. is, indeed, in a period of irrational lack of compromise, but that hasn't usually been the case. Democrats control the presidential seat and senate, but since republicans control the house, they'll have to work with each other and address each others' concerns if they want to make any progress.

Add Comment