US Presidential elections 2012

[mrtourette]

I've seen a lot of comment on news programmes in the last 24 hours or so which has basically said that Obama's political views are about average for traditional Republican, that he's a right-leaning democrat (or at least, as a black man it's been a political necessity for him to present himself and act as that).

The main difference, and what makes him look 'leftish' (particularly in the UK) against the nuttiness of tea-party age Republicanism is what those Republicans would regard as "social liberalism" - his support for gay rights and women's rights. But that was explained as nothing to do with him being a 'social liberal', but simply that he's a modern person in touch with modern views (views that the ageing Republicans at the top of their party just don't get).

If you like, you can make an easy comparison with Dave Moron and his support for gay marriage. He's got the modern age in a way that most of his party has not.

Edited November 8, 2012 by mrtourette

[The Nal]

Fox were really hanging on the other night!

[lost]

I believe the main part of obamacare is it forces people to buy private health insurance. I was watching the stock market sell off last night and the only shares that were going up were the healthcare stocks which suggests people expect them to make more money with Obamacare in place.

[mrtourette]

I thought the main aim was to force health insurance companies to insure people that they normally wouldn't (ie with pre-existing conditions) and to accept children onto their parents insurance.

What the cost of that is to those people I don't know, I wouldn't be surprised if insurance companies that are forced to insure people whack up the premiums of others to make sure that they aren't losing out.

[abdoujaparov]

Cameron is very much like Mitt Romney.

[hot_ice]

The republicans were already in a death struggle internally with the Tea Party. Now they were outvoted by young people, women and minoirties ( Obama lost amongst white males over 45), they need to adapt or die.

Cameron is very much like Mitt Romney. And the barking right wing of the Tories are pretty much the Tea Party as well. I doubt they'd learn the lesson though.

[The Nal]

I thought the main aim was to force health insurance companies to insure people that they normally wouldn't (ie with pre-existing conditions) and to accept children onto their parents insurance.

[zahidf]

Absolutely not. Romney is considerably nuttier than Cameron. Romney would see even Cameron's version of the NHS as dangerous communism. Cameron has some social liberal tendencies (gay marriage, for example) which Romney would not g anywhere near. The fact is that Obama is much closer to Cameron politically - in fact there's very little between them.

Obama is not some kind of left liberal messiah. He's a right wing politician, in a right wing country, pursuing the same imperialist foreign policy as his predecessor

[zahidf]

double post!

Edited November 8, 2012 by zahidf

[zahidf]

They knew about the demogrpahics this election and they still carried on. They should have kicked out the pro rape candidates asap, and Romney should have been a lot forceful in denoucning them. But they didn't and came across badly across women.

Unless they cut down on the misogyny and anti-immigration stuff ( which i don't think they will) they won't win a presidential election again.

I think Chris Christie would be good to run, but he's too mdoerate to win the primaries!

Edited November 8, 2012 by zahidf

[The Nal]

they're left without a cause now. If you declare your bias as much as they have always done, when something like this happens, they look a little silly (not they were ever anything else). Watched about 5 minutes of O'Reilly this morning to see what he might have to say. He really is the most arrogant nasty man I've ever seen host a news programme... he's absolutley certain Romney would have won if only they'd taken his advice.

What will they do now..??... well, they can start rallying the troops for the diminishing whiite establishment

http://www.guardian....-minority-video

so, not left without a cause then...

[mrtourette]

They're not allowed to do that anymore - whack up premiums on "high risk" customers. Funnily (or sadly) enough, before Obamacare, previous victims of domestic abuse we considered "high risk" and paid huge premiums for getting the shit smacked out of them 5 years ago and then claiming for their injuries. Even if it was just one visit to the doctor for a single stitch!

There was also a "lifetime limit" get out from the insurers pre Obamacare. Basically, an insurance company could refuse to pay out if they felt someone was claiming too much.

The Republicans are a fucking disgrace, trying to block it. USA life expectancy is 37th in the world, behind Cuba, Costa Rica, Malta, Puerto Rico, nearly half of all personal bankruptcies are a result of not being able to pay medical bills and this is in a country with a €2 trillion+ health care market with some of the richest companies in the world being insurers/drug manufacturers.

Thats a huge difference in policy between Obama and any republican. And a lot of democrats.

[mrtourette]

They knew about the demogrpahics this election and they still carried on. They should have kicked out the pro rape candidates asap, and Romney should have been a lot forceful in denoucning them. But they didn't and came across badly across women.

Unless they cut down on the misogyny and anti-immigration stuff ( which i don't think they will) they won't win a presidential election again.

I think Chris Christie would be good to run, but he's too mdoerate to win the primaries!

[Wooderson]

This election sounded the death knell on long held notion that the US is an intrinsically conservative country.

[The Nal]

This election sounded the death knell on long held notion that the US is an intrinsically conservative country.

[eFestivals]

This election sounded the death knell on long held notion that the US is an intrinsically conservative country.

eh? How? It certainly didn't manage to do that by voting for the politically conservative Obama.

[zahidf]

eh? How? It certainly didn't manage to do that by voting for the politically conservative Obama.

[eFestivals]

Maybe, but they did vote favourably in four states for gay marriage, and for legalising marijuana in 2. And voted in their first openly gay senator.

In some ways, i'd argue it was a progressive leaning election night. I would defintiely say in terms of American politics, Obama is more progressive than conservtaive. Not by UK terms of course!

you're confusing being socially progressive as a consequence of age and background for being something else.

Dave Moron backs gay marriage, but he's still very definitely intrinsically conservative.

[zahidf]

you're confusing being socially progressive as a consequence of age and background for being something else.

Dave Moron backs gay marriage, but he's still very definitely intrinsically conservative.

Edited November 8, 2012 by zahidf

[The Nal]

eh? How? It certainly didn't manage to do that by voting for the politically conservative Obama.

Edited November 8, 2012 by The Nal

[abdoujaparov]

Oh its still conservative of course. The wider ranging issues, God, guns and war are all still firmly intact. Obama is only left wing and liberal compared with the Republicans and the Tea Party.

[eFestivals]

this is basically spot on. Obama is still a US imperialist. He still supports state sanctioned murder, indefinite detention without trial, indiscriminate killing of civilians as part of a legally dubious and unjustifiable war. He still backs the "war on drugs".

He's a as much a left leaning liberal as I am a cross-dressing second hand sewing machine salesman from Ecuador....

It's a bit of an over-statement to say that he supports detention without trial. He wanted to close Gitmo, and I'm presuming your words there are because he hasn't?

Him failing to close Gitmo is more to do with him being the victim of GW's circumstances; those circumstances pretty much means that he can't close Gitmo unless he simply releases without any trial the people that are held there.

PS: how much are the sewing machines?

[abdoujaparov]

It's a bit of an over-statement to say that he supports detention without trial. He wanted to close Gitmo, and I'm presuming your words there are because he hasn't?

Him failing to close Gitmo is more to do with him being the victim of GW's circumstances; those circumstances pretty much means that he can't close Gitmo unless he simply releases without any trial the people that are held there.

PS: how much are the sewing machines?

[The Nal]

It's a bit of an over-statement to say that he supports detention without trial. He wanted to close Gitmo, and I'm presuming your words there are because he hasn't?

Him failing to close Gitmo is more to do with him being the victim of GW's circumstances; those circumstances pretty much means that he can't close Gitmo unless he simply releases without any trial the people that are held there.

Edited November 8, 2012 by The Nal

[eFestivals]

I think that's an overly simplistic view. Obama has been obstructed in his apparent initial desire to close Guantanamo. But rather than stick to his guns he gave up. And not only did he give up, his administration has wound the clock back so that detention at Guantanamo is as bad a legal black hole as it was under Bush

oh, I know all that. But he gave up because of the stupidity of the USA public* rather than because he blanket-supports detention without trial as you suggested he did. The 'smart' politician is the one who doesn't take on battles he can't win**

(* the UK public would be no less stupid in the same circumstances).

(** that doesn't mean I approve of that 'smart' method btw)