|
Jimbeaux
25,725 posts
100 months
|
I find this odd. The demigraphic of most of PHers seem to be the free enterprise, self-reliant type with nothing good to say about government. Romney is the closest thing we have to that yet you same people jump on the wagon of the relatively few leftist-types on PH when it comes to Yank poloticians. I apologize but it is looking more and more as if you lot know he would be best to revive our economy and are genuinely wanting that to not happen for God knows what reason. 
|
|
|
Marf
22,907 posts
110 months
|
Jimbeaux said: I find this odd. The demigraphic of most of PHers seem to be the free enterprise, self-reliant type with nothing good to say about government. Romney is the closest thing we have to that yet you same people jump on the wagon of the relatively few leftist-types on PH when it comes to Yank poloticians. I apologize but it is looking more and more as if you lot know he would be best to revive our economy and are genuinely wanting that to not happen for God knows what reason. :scratchin: Jim, I think the problem is thus, and I say this as an outsider with an interest in US politics. Our conservatives are rather more socially progressive than yours. Despite the majority of users agreeing with the whole small govt, low tax personal responsibility angle, the vast majority of members prefer the NHS to the private model, think abortion should be legal at a country/federal level and that all members of a society should be equal regardless of colour, religion or sexuality. You cannot argue that America meets these ideals, and further to that the Republican candidates basically discriminate against minority groups to pander to their voter base. He, and most Repub candidates/presidents just comes across to many in the UK as a biligerent intolerant overt right wingers, whose views are tainted by faith which just doesnt wash over here. When Obama was elected it's almost like the world breathed a collective sigh of relief that sense had returned to the US. I'm sure that this isnt a view held by all those outside the US, but overall I'd beleive it to be true. From my point of view, I agree entirely with the Republican partys ideals of small government, low taxes, freedom and individual equality, I just cant marry up those ideals with candidates who seek to legislate what women can do with their wombs and abdicate responsibility to provide equality to gays.(here you are probably thinking not this again!) Having those views does not equate to freedom. It to me says they want to control what people do. This is somewhat in opposition to the whole small government angle. Perhaps its just a cultural difference, but I cannot help but feel any of your RepubPres candidates would fall over on their arse in an election here. It strikes me that the US needs a third way. A party who is happy to hold up the social ideals of inclusiveness and equality of the left, whilst applying the firm fiscal policies of the right. Conservative Liberalism if you like. You're free to do what you like so long as you don't directly impinge on someone elses freedom. I'm sure there will be users that disagree with this though 
|
|
|
IainT
8,012 posts
107 months
|
Jimbeaux said: I find this odd. The demigraphic of most of PHers seem to be the free enterprise, self-reliant type with nothing good to say about government. Romney is the closest thing we have to that yet you same people jump on the wagon of the relatively few leftist-types on PH when it comes to Yank poloticians. I apologize but it is looking more and more as if you lot know he would be best to revive our economy and are genuinely wanting that to not happen for God knows what reason. In many respects your left is right of our right so Obama may not be totally unpalatable, not as though we have any say in it but do have to put up with potential fallout. From where I'm sitting the US has the choice between Obama, who has failed to live up to his prophesied coming, and a religious nutter. Lose-lose.
|
|
|
Marf
22,907 posts
110 months
|
IainT said: In many respects your left is right of our right That's a good point too. The whole political spectrum is shifted somewhat in the US compared to the UK. I think this also has a big effect on how the right in america are perceived because they are so much further right than our conservatives. It also doesn;t help when you have the likes of Sean Hannity, Bill O'Reilly and Glenn Beck championing the ideals of the right. They make the right look like wackos.
|
|
|
Jimbeaux
25,725 posts
100 months
|
Marf said: Jimbeaux said: I find this odd. The demigraphic of most of PHers seem to be the free enterprise, self-reliant type with nothing good to say about government. Romney is the closest thing we have to that yet you same people jump on the wagon of the relatively few leftist-types on PH when it comes to Yank poloticians. I apologize but it is looking more and more as if you lot know he would be best to revive our economy and are genuinely wanting that to not happen for God knows what reason. :scratchin: Jim, I think the problem is thus, and I say this as an outsider with an interest in US politics. Our conservatives are rather more socially progressive than yours. Despite the majority of users agreeing with the whole small govt, low tax personal responsibility angle, the vast majority of members prefer the NHS to the private model, think abortion should be legal at a country/federal level and that all members of a society should be equal regardless of colour, religion or sexuality. You cannot argue that America meets these ideals, and further to that the Republican candidates basically discriminate against minority groups to pander to their voter base. He, and most Repub candidates/presidents just comes across to many in the UK as a biligerent intolerant overt right wingers, whose views are tainted by faith which just doesnt wash over here. When Obama was elected it's almost like the world breathed a collective sigh of relief that sense had returned to the US. I'm sure that this isnt a view held by all those outside the US, but overall I'd beleive it to be true. From my point of view, I agree entirely with the Republican partys ideals of small government, low taxes, freedom and individual equality, I just cant marry up those ideals with candidates who seek to legislate what women can do with their wombs and abdicate responsibility to provide equality to gays.(here you are probably thinking not this again!) Having those views does not equate to freedom. It to me says they want to control what people do. This is somewhat in opposition to the whole small government angle. Perhaps its just a cultural difference, but I cannot help but feel any of your RepubPres candidates would fall over on their arse in an election here. It strikes me that the US needs a third way. A party who is happy to hold up the social ideals of inclusiveness and equality of the left, whilst applying the firm fiscal policies of the right. Conservative Liberalism if you like. You're free to do what you like so long as you don't directly impinge on someone elses freedom. I'm sure there will be users that disagree with this though I agree, a third party is needed. On the abortion, gay marriage, etc. The Repub argument is to let the states decide, not the "big" government. That is where most other nations miss the point I believe, they are not in tune to our feelings regarding states' rights. Dems pander to a base by discriminating as much or more than Repubs. The examples are numerous but not as highlighted by the media as the "evil right wingers" are. Bottom line is that the parts you highlighted as concern for other nations results from a form of ignorance as to how our government and nation actually is designed to function. There are major "architectural" differences and those differences "frighten" some people. In the end, I assure you, we are far more alike than different once the political season packaging is stripped away.
|
Advertisement
|
|
|
Jimbeaux
25,725 posts
100 months
|
IainT said: Jimbeaux said: I find this odd. The demigraphic of most of PHers seem to be the free enterprise, self-reliant type with nothing good to say about government. Romney is the closest thing we have to that yet you same people jump on the wagon of the relatively few leftist-types on PH when it comes to Yank poloticians. I apologize but it is looking more and more as if you lot know he would be best to revive our economy and are genuinely wanting that to not happen for God knows what reason. In many respects your left is right of our right so Obama may not be totally unpalatable, not as though we have any say in it but do have to put up with potential fallout. From where I'm sitting the US has the choice between Obama, who has failed to live up to his prophesied coming, and a religious nutter. Lose-lose. You say "religious nutter". I attach that moniker to those whose incite or carry out suicide bombings or killing of fellow soldiers at an army base for the promise of Virgins and because God loves them. This man not only has not done those things but you would be very hard pressed to find where he has even discussed religion much less pushed it on someone. I think you are being a bit generous with your big wide paint brush there.
|
|
|
Marf
22,907 posts
110 months
|
Jimbeaux said: I agree, a third party is needed.
On the abortion, gay marriage, etc. The Repub argument is to let the states decide, not the "big" government. That is where most other nations miss the point I believe, they are not in tune to our feelings regarding states' rights. Agreed. I think there is often a misunderstanding of how your system works, but from my point of view when a country champions individual freedom and equality, doling this stuff out to the state level just seems a little crass. Jimbeaux said: Dems pander to a base by discriminating as much or more than Repubs. The examples are numerous but not as highlighted by the media as the "evil right wingers" are. No doubt, with regards to stuff not being highlighted, that's likely because the rest of the (free) world would probably tend to agree with the position of the left in the US whilst finding the right in the US too far right to be palatable. Jimbeaux said: Bottom line is that the parts you highlighted as concern for other nations results from a form of ignorance as to how our government and nation actually is designed to function. There are major "architectural" differences and those differences "frighten" some people. I don't know that it frightens people, I think some people just think that some things should be handled at a federal level rather than a state level, and despite best intentions, having these extra layers of control obfuscates progress in "the leader of the free world". I know it was only a TV show, but the opening scene of the Newsroom really does sum up my issue with the US. It holds itself up to being number one in the world, yet it isnt in many areas. http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=FKklog0T9a4&fea...FWIW I didnt like what followed after the opening credits and stopped watching . Jimbeaux said: In the end, I assure you, we are far more alike than different once the political season packaging is stripped away. No doubt
|
|
|
IainT
8,012 posts
107 months
|
Jimbeaux said: IainT said: Jimbeaux said: I find this odd. The demigraphic of most of PHers seem to be the free enterprise, self-reliant type with nothing good to say about government. Romney is the closest thing we have to that yet you same people jump on the wagon of the relatively few leftist-types on PH when it comes to Yank poloticians. I apologize but it is looking more and more as if you lot know he would be best to revive our economy and are genuinely wanting that to not happen for God knows what reason. In many respects your left is right of our right so Obama may not be totally unpalatable, not as though we have any say in it but do have to put up with potential fallout. From where I'm sitting the US has the choice between Obama, who has failed to live up to his prophesied coming, and a religious nutter. Lose-lose. You say "religious nutter". I attach that moniker to those whose incite or carry out suicide bombings or killing of fellow soldiers at an army base for the promise of Virgins and because God loves them. This man not only has not done those things but you would be very hard pressed to find where he has even discussed religion much less pushed it on someone. I think you are being a bit generous with your big wide paint brush there. I would have just used the word religious and let the 'nutter' part go as commonly understood to describe anyone who hears voices and believes in faries. Religious-nuttery is a broad, ahem, church. It caters for your jihadist murderer to your normal bigoted church-goer. Given the current trend in republican rhetoric to destroy your constitutional freedom from religion you're not heading to a happy place imo.
|
|
|
Jimbeaux
25,725 posts
100 months
|
IainT said: your normal bigoted church-goer. You see, you make assumptions that are as inaccurate for as many as it is accurate. Your opinion is not defined as a fact. Iain T said: Given the current trend in republican rhetoric to destroy your constitutional freedom from religion you're not heading to a happy place imo. Our constitutional freedom of religion is far more threatened than our freedom from. Clever, but no dice.
|
|
|
CommanderJameson
20,674 posts
95 months
|
Jimbeaux said: On the abortion, gay marriage, etc. The Repub argument is to let the states decide, not the "big" government. Instead of letting the states decide, why not let the individuals concerned decide? Mad idea, I know.
|
|
|
CommanderJameson
20,674 posts
95 months
|
Jimbeaux said: On the abortion, gay marriage, etc. The Repub argument is to let the states decide, not the "big" government. Instead of letting the states decide, why not let the individuals concerned decide? Mad idea, I know.
|
|
|
CommanderJameson
20,674 posts
95 months
|
Jimbeaux said: On the abortion, gay marriage, etc. The Repub argument is to let the states decide, not the "big" government. Instead of letting the states decide, why not let the individuals concerned decide? Mad idea, I know.
|
|
|
CommanderJameson
20,674 posts
95 months
|
Jimbeaux said: On the abortion, gay marriage, etc. The Repub argument is to let the states decide, not the "big" government. Instead of letting the states decide, why not let the individuals concerned decide? Mad idea, I know.
|
|
|
CommanderJameson
20,674 posts
95 months
|
Jimbeaux said: On the abortion, gay marriage, etc. The Repub argument is to let the states decide, not the "big" government. Instead of letting the states decide, why not let the individuals concerned decide? Mad idea, I know.
|
|
|
unrepentant
14,400 posts
125 months
|
Marf said: Jim, I think the problem is thus, and I say this as an outsider with an interest in US politics.
Our conservatives are rather more socially progressive than yours.
Despite the majority of users agreeing with the whole small govt, low tax personal responsibility angle, the vast majority of members prefer the NHS to the private model, think abortion should be legal at a country/federal level and that all members of a society should be equal regardless of colour, religion or sexuality. You cannot argue that America meets these ideals, and further to that the Republican candidates basically discriminate against minority groups to pander to their voter base.
He, and most Repub candidates/presidents just comes across to many in the UK as a biligerent intolerant overt right wingers, whose views are tainted by faith which just doesnt wash over here. When Obama was elected it's almost like the world breathed a collective sigh of relief that sense had returned to the US. I'm sure that this isnt a view held by all those outside the US, but overall I'd beleive it to be true.  A lot of Brits think that US Conservatives = British Conservatives. They could not be further from the truth. I have never voted anything other than Tory (except once for UKIP in the EU elections) but in the USA my colleagues consider me to be a liberal and I find nothing palatable about the current GOP party at all. Interestingly I find that my better educated (and often better off) friends are usually democrats but if you go into the small towns with slightly run down less prosperous neighbourhoods you see a lot of "save us from Hussein Obama" type signs.
|
|
|
Mermaid
12,492 posts
40 months
|
unrepentant said: .. but if you go into the small towns with slightly run down less prosperous neighbourhoods you see a lot of "save us from Hussein Obama" type signs. Forgive them for they know not 
|
|
|
martin84
5,366 posts
22 months
|
Jimbeaux said: I find this odd. The demigraphic of most of PHers seem to be the free enterprise, self-reliant type with nothing good to say about government. Romney is the closest thing we have to that yet you same people jump on the wagon of the relatively few leftist-types on PH when it comes to Yank poloticians. A few other posters have picked up on this point but I'll say it again; The American left (ie Democrats) are pretty much in the same place on the political spectrum as the modern day UK Conservative Party. The American right (Republicans) are in roughly the same place as Anne Widdecombe, fruitcake loons at UKIP (the faction which still let the party down) and the racist ranters at the BNP which are not taken seriously in this country. If the Republicans existed in the UK then the Conservative's would be the left sided party. Jimbeaux said: On the abortion, gay marriage, etc. The Repub argument is to let the states decide, not the "big" government. That is where most other nations miss the point I believe, they are not in tune to our feelings regarding states' rights. Yes they'll allow states which want to ban abortion to ban abortion, which is not the sort of thing people in the UK can get on board with. Deeply Conservative red states will ban it if given the chance. In that case we want 'Big' government - if you insist on calling it that - to legislate it's legality for the whole country. In most cases a Republican candidate has to err towards a pro-life stance muddled in with religious nonsense as they pander to a Christian right (which gets far too much airtime in the US) and then says 'oh but I'll let states decide.' If that's the case then why state your preference in the first place? In the UK we believe something should be legal in a country or illegal, not legal in some parts but illegal in others. By 'letting states decide' matters like this you give them licence to discriminate, we can't get on board with that. You can't be the 'United States' one day and individual states the next. You're either one country or you're not. Marf said: He, and most Repub candidates/presidents just comes across to many in the UK as a biligerent intolerant overt right wingers, whose views are tainted by faith which just doesnt wash over here. That's the problem. The Republicans paint themselves as believing in freedom for all but in reality they believe in freedom for people who agree with them and not for anybody else. They believe in freedom - but not for women to choose what they want to do with their own bodies. They believe in freedom - but not to marry someone of the same gender as yourself. The religion side puts most of the UK off them hugely, we don't want religion in our politics and our political leaders very very rarely say anything about it. They do not have to pander to a Christian faction or go to church every sunday or else risk losing backing from within the party. We view the Republicans as out of touch, old fashioned, intolerant, ranting, mouth frothing god botherers who refuse to accept its not the 1950's anymore. The UK's view of the Republican candidates is never helped by the fact they're usually quite gormless, tactless people. I remember someone on the Republican side in 2008 almost criticising Obama for being good with words. Oh no don't vote for him he can string a sentence together!! 
|
|
|
Jimbeaux
25,725 posts
100 months
|
CommanderJameson said: Jimbeaux said: On the abortion, gay marriage, etc. The Repub argument is to let the states decide, not the "big" government. Instead of letting the states decide, why not let the individuals concerned decide? Mad idea, I know. That is the idea, but if it concerns legal matters (marriage license, etc.) there has to be a jurisdictional boundry within which to practice said statute.
|
|
|
Jimbeaux
25,725 posts
100 months
|
unrepentant said: Marf said: Jim, I think the problem is thus, and I say this as an outsider with an interest in US politics.
Our conservatives are rather more socially progressive than yours.
Despite the majority of users agreeing with the whole small govt, low tax personal responsibility angle, the vast majority of members prefer the NHS to the private model, think abortion should be legal at a country/federal level and that all members of a society should be equal regardless of colour, religion or sexuality. You cannot argue that America meets these ideals, and further to that the Republican candidates basically discriminate against minority groups to pander to their voter base.
He, and most Repub candidates/presidents just comes across to many in the UK as a biligerent intolerant overt right wingers, whose views are tainted by faith which just doesnt wash over here. When Obama was elected it's almost like the world breathed a collective sigh of relief that sense had returned to the US. I'm sure that this isnt a view held by all those outside the US, but overall I'd beleive it to be true. A lot of Brits think that US Conservatives = British Conservatives. They could not be further from the truth. I have never voted anything other than Tory (except once for UKIP in the EU elections) but in the USA my colleagues consider me to be a liberal and I find nothing palatable about the current GOP party at all. Interestingly I find that my better educated (and often better off) friends are usually democrats but if you go into the small towns with slightly run down less prosperous neighbourhoods you see a lot of "save us from Hussein Obama" type signs. Sorry, but I live here and you will find most "middle Americans" are either GOP or consevative Dems.
|
|
|
martin84
5,366 posts
22 months
|
Jimbeaux said: That is the idea, but if it concerns legal matters (marriage license, etc.) there has to be a jurisdictional boundry within which to practice said statute. So you dislike Big Government but Big State is ok?
|
|
