Discussion in 'Politics' started by bryce, Dec 12, 2011.
That is a good article Bowside. Thanks for posting.
There's always a few crazies who pop up in presidential primaries, but usually they don't last as long as they have this time - probably a reflection of how frustrated Americans are about the state of their nation and especially the antics in Washington. Mind you, they haven't actually had an actual primary poll yet - they start just after new year. That will clear the air a bit.
Though I don't think Ron Paul is a crazy - at least some of his support will be from people who grudgingly respect his consistnecy over the years, sticking to his libertarian line even when it was unpopular - compared to the chopping and changing of philosphy by his opponents.
Apparently Ron Paul is hitting the front in the Iowa - a good article summarising the place of his campaign at the moment, and grappling with the above issues:
But I read the concerns voiced by his supporters in those last couple of paragroahs and just think: Bloody hell, we have it good here in Australia.
Ron Paul will hit some big hurdles closer to the Conventions. He is not mad enough to win over the rat bag right and while his financial libertarianism seems like a good idea to Conservatives when they are thinking it cuts social welfare, it is not nearly so attractive to the big busines donors who see possible cuts to business welfare such as steel subsidies, farm subsidies, etc etc. He will lack the hefty donors required to foot it with other candidates.
F**k I hate politics. I'm not a massive Ron Paul fan or anything but what the hell has this really got to do with whether the guy can do a good job or would be a good president???
I wish the Aussie system was more like this, having a group of crazies allowed to throw there hat in the ring and claim a right to run.
It's fantastic theatre.
Isn't there enough theatre in Australian politics?
Sometimes I wish we had a primary system though, but not for that reason. Voters/members of parties being allowed to vote for the leader could mean that we'd have party leaders who are there because they stand for something, display intelligence and therefore appeal to voters, rather than because they are the most skillful at arse kissing, back stabbing and party room manoeuvring.
But then again, you probably would end up with a similar sideshow like in the US, where the winner is usually the one with the most funding, as well as the willingness to do anything to win votes.
I strongly believe that a good political system would be to do the exact opposite to what the Americans do, within a democratic system. Any system which delivers two terms of George Bush followed by a group of contenders such as we see now is obviously deeply flawed.
I also believe our electoral system should be the template for democratic countries world wide. The US system would be derided by commentators the world over if it were adopted by nations such as India or Russia as it is riven with built in rorts and corruption.
Making these guys go through this selection process leaves them with about as much dignity and credibility as an X-Factor contestant who had to cry over a personal history of hardship to make it through to the next round.
I know this is the thread for the Republican Candidate Race but I read this and just thought it was awesome:
I am assuming you know it is from The Onion.
How amazing this would be if it actually happened.
Yes and YES!
That is awesome.
I just read this article on Santorum. It was amazing the way he came out of nowhere. I'm hoping he disappears just as quickly.
I hope he stays, if he wins Obama will win. Now I'm no fan of Obama but the GOP of today simply ain't what it was like back with George Bush Senior (I stress not Reagan). Bush Senior was a pragmatic, he believed in increasing taxes, balancing budgets and personal freedoms (pro choice, not anti gay or anti science). For the GOP to be a party which promotes creationism as a popular viewpoint really concerns me. The priority for America should be reducing the deficit, and that needs to be done by both raising taxes and reducing government. I think the UK model of drastically reducing the debt is really what the GOP needs to employ.
If I were living in America I'd probably prefer to see a focus on growth and jobs. I'm not too convinced that the current UK policy is the best way to go.
One of the more "sane" US presidential candidates.
I understand that I really do, but the UK model of drastically eradicating debt to lead to lower interest rates as well as less interest payable under the debt. The USA are currently swamped with deficit deniers. It's ridiculous to talk about radical tax cuts in a time like this. Ron Paul talks about the deficit, and Huntsman does too. Huntsman wants to lower taxes but he at least gets rid of every subsidy and every break for the wealthy in the tax code.
I mean the front runner Mitt Romney, wants an increased military and lower taxes but somehow thinks he can reduce the deficit quicker, it is absolutely ridiculous. You can't have it all. Cuts need to be made left, right and centre. Santorum, Perry and all the other clowns are proposing lower taxes and more military. Perry even says he will go back into Iraq. These guys are complete clowns and fruitcakes. Absolute idiots.
Not exactly the republican race, but kinda related. Pretty kick-ass speech from Bill Clinton. A nice change from the usual US political scene, someone prepared to actually speak their mind.
I assume everyone has seen the Mitt Romney tapes that have popped up in the past few days. Democratic strategists couldn't have made this stuff up. The guy is just the gift that keeps on giving.
Then again, maybe this will actually energise the Republican base?
Separate names with a comma.