Should the US become more like the UAE? Please enlighten us on the democratic election process there. Thank you in advance.
I'm still think Obama will win close. Romney is such a sorry caricature of a candidate that he will have trouble winning even against a very weak incumbent. Remember, Obama's team has decided to pull the gloves off early and will unload the kitchen sink and the toilet on the guy before it's over. Count me in the group that believes they are saving the stinkiest poop on Romney for later (if it's needed).
Sensationalize much? Demolish? lol I know what it is, but I think there are other qualities of speech (other than freedom to use it) that are also important. The simplest way I can put this is: 10 people in a room, all free to say what they want, 1 of them has a megaphone. Really diminishes the value and utility of free speech. As things are, it's not working out right. Surely, you don't believe the current structure of restrictions and freedoms is the final solution. I'd like to hear your suggestions. Regarding your question, yes it's easy to participate where you are told, but there is such a thing as better participation. I don't care if someone is rich or not, I just think everyone's voice should be heard all the same because ANY other weighting (for example, weighting voice by money) is unfair to some group. Perhaps, but seems to me a better way to get your guys to talk about serious stuff, rather than Romney's dog and Obama's birth certificate. You're right, parliamentary governments have their problems too. Do you have any suggestions for improving the process?
You have already demonstrated countless times that you do not understand the concept of freedom of speech. AT ALL. You must be speaking about the UAE, where you work for the government and where human rights are systematically abused. I'd like to hear yours on how to fix things in your own country. Or are you too much of a coward to present them to your dictatorial government? Do you have any suggestions for improving the process in the dictatorship you work for?
What you consistently forget Mathloon is that when you say "The people should do X", you really mean, "The government should do X". So when you stated about elections and the nomination process that "the agenda for discussion should be pre-approved by the people", you basically meant that "the government ( whom will directly participate in the election) should determine what the issues in an election are about. The government would never abuse such an idea. Solution to what? I know I've argued before that I think that money in political campaigns is a seriously overrated problem which people can easily sensationalize and rally around. America has many problems, but I frankly think many of them are due to too much democracy, not too little. Contrary to what you are taught in grade school, opinions are NOT equal, and thus they should not be heard all the same. You and I may disagree on practically everything, but I pay more attention to your posts and opinion compared to say, Hightop's crap which I just laugh at, and I do hope you do likewise. In the real world, Alex Jones and Thomas Friedman do not deserve equal face time with Zakaria and Mearshiemer. Okay, I'm a little harsh on Friedman. No I'm not. Furthermore, even if I concede that all opinions should be shared equally, reality dictates that Americans do not have the time to listen to the other 300 million opinions of their fellow citizen. Which means someone or something has to regulate how they're shown. We tried that already. It was the Fairness Doctrine with radio, and to no one's surprise, governments and politicians used it to oppress and shut down the opposition. That's what really happens 99% of the time you attempt to regulate speech in the name of equality.
The process as it stands serves a purpose, which is to put candidates under the microscope for a long enough time to be exposed before it's too late. Right now, Romney is the best national Republicans have to offer which shows the national GOP is complete trash right now. Obama should be relatively easy to defeat but all they could do is toss out an untrustworthy shape-shifter with no guiding principles. The two-party system in the U.S. is as good as or better than any democratic system in the world. Unfortunately, moneyed special interests have too much influence. This frustrates me to no end but it is a flaw we have to live with. I wouldn't want to live anywhere else in the world. Because of my industry, I've traveled and spent time in many areas (including the Middle East), seen and appreciated/respected various cultures and value-systems, but every time the plane lands at IAH, I thank God I'm an American and want to kiss the ground.
I really don't care what Mathloom thinks of the American political process, at least in this instance, because all it does is derail the topic. Start a thread if you want to carry on about our governmental political structure, Mathloom, if you don't mind. Then we can compare and contrast it with your own. With that out of the way... Has this member of Romney's team, the guy that made this comment, been identified? Anyone know? Because if he has, he should have been fired by now, and if he has not, Romney should be vilified for not having done so. This is the lowest of the low, accusing the President of the United States of basically not being an American. Of course, Romney is making similar comments himself, so I shouldn't be surprised, just disappointed. And anyone who defends this kind of campaign "tactic" deserves to be vilified as well. In my humble opinion, of course.
We can show that this works better than other experiments in the past, but that doesn't mean change is not needed. To show that change is not needed, you'd have to show that this is the best working structure today, especially given the resources at your disposal. Several "free" countries ban some speech with great success. Many enjoy better equality. America was far more successful when it was progressive with changes, and it had lots to do with equality (women, blacks, diplomacy, etc). What good is your freedom of speech when it is muted at the time you need it most, when you are trying to elect your leaders? What good is freedom of speech if your leaders are largely and clearly interested in listening to the richest, when not everyone is rich? There is obviously a democracy deficit which needs to be addressed, and we can't justify it by saying "well some people are stupid". The irony is that this structure is breeding that stupidity so how do you get out of this cycle? By speaking more? No, you do it by leveling the playing field. Teach kids how to analyze history rather than feeding them biased historical stories, for example. Same problem that keeps creationism in schools, because creationists are easier to convince that God made poor people poor, and that a good Christian is better suited to leading a country than a better qualified atheist. But who is going to make that happen? People who are successfully influencing politics don't want that. Their power to cut out a candidate by pulling $'s is a national security risk. You could deal with these problems on a case by case basis, but it looks (to me at least) like all these problems are rooted in the same place. You inherit a heck load of money, you're going to keep it and grow it fast. That's fine, but inherited money, in this case, is fueling the problem and prolonging a resolution intentionally. How do you solve that problem, even if the circumstances are better than they were at some point in history?
Between his comments and Obama's "you didn't build your business" comments, you'd think neither side has any political experience at all.
The "comment" you mentioned from the President is taken completely out of context. Do a search and find a video of what he said in its entirety, and you'll see.
I've seen it. But I'm willing to bet that the average voter hasn't or misunderstands Obama's point. If I'm a campaign manager, I'm looking for anything that can be damaging if misconstrued. I definitely would have asked him to change the wording.
No kidding, but it's so difficult being "perfect." If he was reading off a teleprompter, then yes, someone should have seen the hazard of that sentence being picked out of his remarks. In the old days, none of this would have been noticed. The curse of "instant disinformation."
Romney insults his host and their handling of the Olympics Cameron addressed that critique head on. “In terms of people coming together, the torch relay demonstrated that this is not a London Games, this is not an England Games but this is a United Kingdom Games,” Cameron said. “We’ll show the world we’ve not only come together as a United Kingdom but are extremely good at welcoming people from across the world.” Nor did the British press seem to appreciate Romney’s advice. “Mitt Romney questions London’s readiness for Olympic Games,” blared The Guardian, in a story that dwelt on Romney’s criticisms of the Games. The Telegraph couldn’t conceal it’s opinion of Romney’s remarks, writing, “if Mitt Romney doesn’t like us, we shouldn’t care,” and accusing Romney of launching a “charm offensive” that is “devoid of charm and mildly offensive.” Romney was in damage-control mode Thursday, walking back his critiques and expressing confidence in the Games in a short statement after his meeting with Cameron.
The Telegraph responds to Mittens Commentary: if Mitt Romney doesn’t like us, we shouldn’t care Mitt Romney is perhaps the only politician who could start a trip that was supposed to be a charm offensive by being utterly devoid of charm and mildly offensive. His derisory comments questioning Britain’s preparedness for the Olympics in an interview with NBC were a strange way to build bridges with a country that he says should be restored as the umbilical ally of the United States, and a strange way to demonstrate the persuasive qualities needed as leader of the free world. Mr Romney is the scion of Liverpudlians who sought and found fortune and the freedom to practice the Mormon faith (eventually) across the pond. His wife Ann has Welsh pedigree. The Republican candidate supposedly values these connections so highly that foreign policy advisors told the Daily Telegraph that a Romney presidency would restore the “Anglo-Saxon” dimension of the transatlantic alliance. But his comments to NBC, particularly his doubts about Britons’ ability to celebrate the games, showed how poorly he understands the land of his forefathers. If he possessed a smidgeon of insight into the British psyche he would have known that despite all the pre-match whingeing and the carping, that on the night we will celebrate the games with all the gusto and fervour they deserve. We moan, and then we smile; that is just our way. And to even a casual student of British public life, it was obvious both that immigration officers would call off their strike at the eleventh hour and that thousands of part-time labourers wouldn’t be bothered to show up to work for G4S, the security firm. I have listened to Mitt Romney's stump speech countless times. A standard refrain is to run down Europe – not a hard case to make at the moment – and that includes us. Not once have I heard him praise Britain or extol the special relationship he now belatedly trumpets. He even reprised his dislike of the NHS shortly before leaving for these shores of benighted, yellow-toothed natives who spend half their lives waiting in hospital, having tried as governor of Massachusetts to ensure that everyone in his state, as in Britain, had access to health care. His current pledge to “revive” ties between the US and Britain sounds suspiciously like a talking point drummed up in a policy meeting and designed to differentiate himself from President Barack Obama for domestic purposes. Yet there isn’t much currently wrong with the transatlantic alliance, as last summer’s exultant state visit by Obama showed. It is true the president is less enamoured of traditional allies than his predecessors, but that reflects as much his exotic background and upbringing than his country’s changing interests. There have been plenty of bumps and kinks in relations before. Romney is a pragmatist and a businessman above all else. As president he would put American interests first, as has the man he is trying to beat in November. Britain might not feel so special then.
Dumb advisor is dumb. Actually, I'm still debating with myself if it was a dumb or smart thing to say. On the one hand, it makes Romney look that much more privileged and implies to all minorities that they do not belong in an American seat of power because of their ethnicity. On the other hand, it reminds all the white voters that Obama isn't white and only white people belong in a seat of power. So I guess it's a gamble on which is the bigger asset in the election, the racists or the minorities.
