masseffect7 wrote:@Zanteogo Normally I agree with you, but overall I don't think you could possibly be more wrong about American politics.
It's certainly possible.
Life is one big learning experience.
I do find American politics interesting however...
masseffect7 wrote: Barack Obama is one of the worst presidents in modern history. He had numerous opportunities to be a unifying figure, but instead he chose the route that Alinskyites typically take, which is to polarize and divide for political gain, particularly on racial and class lines. Also, the idea that he had the right ideas and he just didn't get them into place is absolutely ludicrous. He had two full years with supermajorities in both the House and Senate where he could get almost anything through and he got Obamacare done, which is an absolute failure and has not lived up to what he said it would be. Many commentators think he purposely delayed some of his policies to when there was a Republican congress so he could blame his lack of success on them, rather than his terrible policy ideas.
Obama is certainly not without his flaws. Compared to the last 4 presidents I would personally say he was the best.
Obamacare is a start of a greater change. The American health care system is horrible. (unless you're rich) Was it the change that was needed? Maybe it could have been better. Does it need some fixing? Certainly.
masseffect7 wrote:I disagree that Hillary is much worse than Obama. Hillary is not nearly is good at politics as Obama, she is an awful public speaker and comes off as an insincere robot whenever she speaks. Obama, on the other hand, is very skilled. He has the acting ability of a leading man and he is very smooth. I also believe he is much more ideological than Hillary. I don't think Hillary is skilled enough to get much done, which from my perspective is a good thing because anything she wants to do will likely be terrible.
Exactly what things do you fear Hillary will do? You stated earlier that she might give some illegal immigrants the option to become legal ones. If they are going to be there they might as well be paying taxes and being paid a legal wage...
masseffect7 wrote:When you think of conservatives as white racist Christians, perhaps you are thinking of the classic Democrats, who were conservative socially, but were statists politically. They were racists and advocated for segregation and such policies. If any party advocates for racist policy, I would look at the Democrat party, which has consistently used race in policy throughout its existence. The fact that the Republican party seeks to remove race from political life is far less racist than Democrat policies such as affirmative action and the like. To say that most of the Republican party is racist is quite shameful on your part. Last time I checked, the Republican primary was far more racially diverse than the Democrats' was.
Perhaps I was harsh in my original statement. My intent was to perhaps explain the stigma the "American Conservative" has.
However, I seem to remember a slew of Republicans rushing in to give their support Kim Davis to protect her "Christian" right not to give marriage certificates to gay couples.. (Trump, to his credit actually said she should just follow the law and do it however) This is the kind of stuff I am referring to. (not a racial issue mind you, but a basic human rights issue)
They just lean to the "good old fashion American Values" post too often. The world is changing, people who refuse to adapt tend to get left behind or worse fall..
masseffect7 wrote:American conservatism hinges on adherence to the original meaning of the constitution and values of the American founding. That's what it is. Politicians that do not do this are not conservative. Not all Republicans are conservative, just as not all Democrats are socialists like Bernie Sanders.
Republicans do lean towards the conservative side, from what I have seen any ways.
masseffect7 wrote:I have seen you in posts here saying that the American system is "anti-change" and that is exactly how it is supposed to be. Many people look at the Bill of Rights as the most important part of the Constitution, but this is not the case. Many countries have a bill of rights. For example, China has one and so did the Soviet Union. What is different about the US Constitution is the structure of government outlined in it. There is a clear separation of powers that makes wholesale change very difficult. The founders felt that separating powers into three branches and having two legislative houses elected in different ways would be the best way to protect minorities and promote liberty.
I agree, it's a good system to lessen corruption and mob rule. However, change should not be so difficult that it's near impossible to do. As time passes the world changes, America can't become the old empire that's so stuck on "days past" that it can't look to the future. America has done some great things and produced some great people. It also has done some crazy stuff that has made the rest of the world eye roll...
masseffect7 wrote:If Trump will destroy America on an international level, I ask you what has Obama been doing for the past 8 years? Obama has consistently miscalculated on a foreign policy level. Perhaps foreigners such as yourself like his policy because he has been so hands off, but the current state of the Middle East is really an indictment of such an approach. The typical rebuttal is that George W. Bush shouldn't have been in Iraq in the first place, and maybe that's the case, but that does not excuse the Obama administration's mishandling of the Middle East for over eight years. If we want to play the blame game, then let's blame 9/11 on Bill Clinton, who's failure to apprehend Osama bin Laden has dictated American policy for the past 15 years and caused the United States to enter Afghanistan in 2001 and Iraq in 2003. The buck has to stop somewhere, and its best to hold each president responsible for the decisions that they make with what they were given.
What exactly could he have done differently in the middle east?
The middle east and Afghanistan fiasco rests solely on George Bush and his team. It was supposed to be a "response" to the 9/11 attacks, and perhaps in some was the Afghanistan war could have been a justified, the Iraq invasion however was totally unjustified and was started on false reasons. Most of the current destabilization occurring their today is the result of the aftermath of this. Trying to pin this on Bill Clinton is weak, sorry.
"Perhaps foreigners such as yourself like his policy because he has been so hands off", I have to say, that's an odd statement to make. What exactly do you mean by that? Human life is human life.
masseffect7 wrote:The only reason Obama is so popular at this moment is because both candidates look so awful compared to him rather than anything he has done. Just look at the trends of the polls. As more focus has gone to the current cycle, less attention is on Obama and more is on two awful candidates. Do not forget that this is a battle between the two least popular candidates in American history, with Trump being #1 and Hillary being #2. Obama could be really terrible (as he is) and look great next to those idiots.
Obama is popular because of his backing of things like gay rights, not dragging America into another needless conflict, turning the American economy around (for the most part), and attempting to, and to a degree succeeding, fixing the American health care system. (edit: but needs way more fixing)
masseffect7 wrote:Lastly, why is the responsibility only on the Republicans not to pick someone terrible? Trump only got about 35% of the primary votes, far more people were voting against him than for him. And there were far more Republicans questioning his character during the Republican primary than there ever were from Democrats about Hillary during the Democrat primary.
Yet they still picked Trump in the end.. if no one voted for him he wouldn't be running now.