What? no Palin vs Letterman thread. 37 replies

Please wait...

Dot Com

I'm too cool to Post

50 XP

26th June 2000

0 Uploads

6,116 Posts

0 Threads

#31 9 years ago
Von Mudra;4923036I prefer Obama, mostly because I find him absolutely hilarious, and he'll only destroy the Democrats. Much better then Palin, who would make me cry for completing the destruction of the foundations of the Republican party, a practice started by Bush.

How about a Biden/Palin ticket for 2012 so they can destroy both parties, eh?




Mitch Connor

Spamulous Spamitopian

50 XP

7th August 2008

0 Uploads

6,095 Posts

0 Threads

#32 9 years ago
Relander;4923143Obama is making such a good job of destroying the Democratic Party with his over 60% approval rating, finally introducing plans to get the USA out of Iraq, how to get cost-effective health care for all and closing down Guantanamo, not to mention keeping his promise of middle-class tax cuts, stopping torture, increasing transparency of government and making an effort to reach out to moderate muslim countries and increase energy independency & new jobs through investments on renewable energy. Whether you're for or against these actions and plans is irrelevant in this particular case, as is my opinion, as long as the majority of the Democrats, and especially of the American people, approve what Obama is doing and they do. There are no signs about the "destruction of the Democratic Party", let alone Obama administration, right on the contrary. The Republican party is in turmoil. The Democrats control the White House, the House of Representatives and when the election fight in Minnesota between Coleman and Franken finally gets solved in this Summer, they also have absolute control of the Senate with 60-seat, filbuster-proof majority: no need to negotiate even with moderate Republican senators Olympia Snowe or Susan Collins. There are more Republican incumbents retiring from the Senate and House of Representatives than Democrats while the Republicans have hard time finding top-notch candidates from Republican governors, House members or state senators to run for Senate: what's the use of getting to be rank-and-file senator in powerless minority caucus when you have a safe job as an incumbent? Moreover the anti-immigration Tancredo wing of the Republican party is strong and makes sure that the increasing Latino population will vote for the Democrats in the future as well. Choosing a black man, Michael Steele, to run the RNC isn't enough alone to persuade blacks to vote for the GOP.

I wouldn't necessarily call having control of the White House, House, and Senate a good thing as it destroys the whole entire system of checks and balances. When you have no criticism (that you have to listen to) you never get any different angles or perspectives. And according to a May29-31 poll, Pelosi had an approval rating of 34% which is on par with the approval rating of Chenney (link). So apparently the American people aren't very happy with the speaker of the house and congress. I wouldn't say that this current government is a bad one but they certainly aren't a shining beacon of hope at the moment. I would say they are trying but in some areas they need to just stop trying. For example, healthcare is good the way it is for America. Notice how I underlined America; because while universal healthcare may be ok in European countries, America is much larger and it costs a lot more to implement a universal healthcare program across all of America. Not to mention the key example (Veteran's healthcare) in the US is nothing but a collosile failure, ask a Veteran if they are happy with the care they recieved with Veteran's healthcare. So while I'm not going to say burn Obama's administration at the stake, I'm also not going to say prop them up on a pedistal for all to see.




Keyser_Soze

Loves Lamp

50 XP

3rd May 2009

0 Uploads

949 Posts

0 Threads

#33 9 years ago

by 2016, palin will have drifted into obscurity, and become another geraldine ferraro. I doubt she'll be nominated by the republicans in 2012, given by the fact that she doesn't reach out to moderates, and instead sees support from neo-conservatives, paleo-conservstives, and the christian right, while this is a significant portion of republicans, it is not in the states with a lot of college votes, like new york, florida, and california, meaning she may well do abysmally. Her 'palinomania' ended with 'palinomonium ' in 2008, as people started to dislike her. Hell, alaska's most popular daily newspaper endorsed obama! no bias, there. It's popular because it's what alaskans want to read, and alaska being among the most conservative states, this puts her at doubt. If she is nominated, she'd still do poorly. She wouldn't grab many of the big states, except for texas, as the 2010 census shows swing states like ohio to be becoming less important. This could affect either candidate, but i can't really see palin being taken seriously enough to be elected as president. If republicans see obama as inexperienced for just 5 years as a senator (and a state senator before that), wgat will they say about palin's 5 years as a governor, and the totally insignificant mayorship of a backwater town in alaska?

Palin won't be able to win the urban areas that matter, and will probably not be nominated, let alone elected.




Guest

I didn't make it!

0 XP

 
#34 9 years ago

I've never listened to Letterman, but Colbert and Jon Stewart were bashing Palin and her children non stop. It's comedy, in most forms of it someone is going to get bashed. That person needs to realize that it's a joke, even if it's towards your daughter




Relander

Ambassador

50 XP

8th April 2005

0 Uploads

2,538 Posts

0 Threads

#35 9 years ago
Ronald_Jesch;4923191I wouldn't necessarily call having control of the White House, House, and Senate a good thing as it destroys the whole entire system of checks and balances.

To be honest I have never quite fully understood the willingness to hold tight on old political structures instead of reforming them, making them more representative, transparent, trustworthy and especially more effective.

Checks & balances was a revolutionary new concept in 1700's and it surely is a magnificent idea in theory and in people's minds. However when you look at it the system mainly maintains bitterly partisan, gridlocked political system in which nothing major gets done and instead it's about 24/7 campaigning, constant scoring of political points and bloody partisan battles (thanks to 2-year election terms as well), not about cooperation & moderacy as the Founding Fathers meant it to be.

Not to mention that internal party politics in both the Democratic and Republican parties, 2-year terms, semi-independent states/cities, person-oriented politics and the media are rather strong moderators of politics already.

In modern multi-party democracies there's already checks & balances without different, balancing levels of government: political parties have to form coalitions with each other to govern as it's highly unlikely, if not virtually impossible, that one party can win the majority of seats in the parliament. Thus parties have to cooperate and make compromises with each other to form a governing majority coalition: policies the government will introduce is the sum of different political views in the first place.

And according to a May29-31 poll, Pelosi had an approval rating of 34% which is on par with the approval rating of Chenney (link). So apparently the American people aren't very happy with the speaker of the house and congress.

Yes, the American people are discontent because they feel the Congress isn't/wasn't working for them, getting things done that would make their lives better. This is the case largely due to the fact that President Bush vetoed almost every single iniative coming from the Democrat congressional majority in 2006-2008 (and the Democrats did the same to Bush's iniatives), giving bad reputation for the Democrats and their figureheads. Now it's different as something is finally getting done as the Democrats have the presidency and both chambers of Congress, just like the Republicans had from 2000-2002 and 2004-2006. People wanted change and that's what they got. This should be respected.

For example, healthcare is good the way it is for America. Notice how I underlined America; because while universal healthcare may be ok in European countries, America is much larger and it costs a lot more to implement a universal healthcare program across all of America.

I think this is intellectually dishonest when the USA is also one of the wealthiest nations in earth with massive economic resources and workforce. If there's just enough political will then major undertakings such as universal health care aren't utopia: it's all about how you want to use the tax dollars.

For example one can question how meaningful it's for the USA to spend some 40% of its federal budget on its armed forces (excluding the expenses of the wars in Iraq & Afghanistan), more than next 10 major powers combined, war or no war. One can question how meaningful it's for the federal government to spend billions of dollars on propping up oil companies (which made record profits before the financial crisis) or large farms which can survive on their own. And one can question how meaningful it's for the federal government to spend billions of dollars on petty pork-barrel projects (like building the bridge to nowhere).

Furthermore it should be noted that Obama's health care plan isn't actually that revolutionary as it still let's people to have health care insurances they already have and lets the private sector to provide vast majority of health care services in the future as well but with increased supervision. Not to mention that a lot focus is put on preventive measures instead of just treating the symptoms. If people's health is fine, then they are also more productive workers and have stronger personal economy.




Mitch Connor

Spamulous Spamitopian

50 XP

7th August 2008

0 Uploads

6,095 Posts

0 Threads

#36 9 years ago

But does it really make it any better that the only reason Americans are discontent with Congress is its bitter partisan battles with the Bush Administration? If anything it shows that they aren't willing to work together towards the greater good of the people, they showed that they obviously had discontent for Bush and his administration which makes them appear more childish than anything. Not to say that the Bush Administration doing the same thing back is any better.

And as for our military spending, it's always been the role of the United States as the "World's policeman" after the 1940s, while it hasn't been a good policy at times it's still what the United States is known for. And it doesn't seem like a bad idea to invest in our military when we rely upon it so often, just to get a step up on everyone else.

The American people already spend a lot on taxes to keep up with government paying for community projects, roadwork, police work, mail, etc. that they really don't want any more tax burden for a system that might end up a flop. If anything it would be wiser to test the system in a part of the country with all of the country paying a smaller part into it just to see if it would work.




NiteStryker

Biggest F-ing A-hole 2010

215,560 XP

24th April 2003

0 Uploads

18,771 Posts

0 Threads

#37 9 years ago

Quetron;4922946 Palin has been mocked, but in reality she is gonna kick some ass. [/QUOTE] :lol: What a troll.

[QUOTE=Quetron;4922946] Nut you fail to even know a thing about respect.

I dont know who "nut" is but you cant call anyone out for anythingremotely related to respect with the rep you have. How many red blocks is that?




Relander

Ambassador

50 XP

8th April 2005

0 Uploads

2,538 Posts

0 Threads

#38 9 years ago
Ronald_Jesch;4923671But does it really make it any better that the only reason Americans are discontent with Congress is its bitter partisan battles with the Bush Administration?

It's one of the many reasons. Other reasons are lack of choices, dirty campaigning, corruption & scandals of politicians, difficulty of voting & disenfrancisement and empty campaign promises (literally promises, not just stated goals or plans), propably endless elections as well.

The US political system as a whole is based on bitter partisanship, intense fight from power and using any means to achieve it because of the first-past-the-post election system, effectively turning the country into two-party system. There have always been heavy partisanship, the Bush presidency just intensified it.

If anything it shows that they aren't willing to work together towards the greater good of the people

"Greater good of the people" is in the eye of the beholder, it means different things to different people so it's a slippery slope.

And as for our military spending, it's always been the role of the United States as the "World's policeman" after the 1940s, while it hasn't been a good policy at times it's still what the United States is known for. And it doesn't seem like a bad idea to invest in our military when we rely upon it so often, just to get a step up on everyone else.

I think it's rather poor argument to say something should be uphold because "it's always been this way" or "that's how the things are". The US armed forces are some 10-15 years ahead of next most advanced military power in the world and no country can even nearly match its military superiority.

However a question can be raised if there would be need for using 40% of the federal budget on military if the USA would take significantly different approach in its foreign policy, emphasizing diplomacy, cooperation and relying on its allies more instead of trying to be "the leader of the civilized world", toppling dictators & tyrant regimes and be fully self-supporting military wise.

Furthermore I find it questionable why billions of dollars are used on Star Wars-like projects such as robot soldiers, armed satellite systems, unmanned combat fighters and weapons systems in general which would not just be 5-10 years ahead of anything other in the world, but 10-20 years ahead. Total military dominance is more important than the well-being of the American people?

The American people already spend a lot on taxes to keep up with government paying for community projects, roadwork, police work, mail, etc. that they really don't want any more tax burden for a system that might end up a flop.

In the long run the universal health care system would propably save the US tax payers money through better health. And like said: it's all about how you want to use the tax dollars. It's also a question which taxes should be raised and where there can be savings. For example ending the Bush tax cuts for the wealthiest 5% and pulling out from Iraq will save some 300-400 billion dollars a year.