Print

Please login or register.
1 Hour 1 Day 1 Week 1 Month Forever
Login with username, password and session length

[MetalSlimeHunt]

A lot could happen in the next 13 months.

[Criptfeind]

That is a interesting idea. A occupy party. I am not sure if I like that, because I feel that would necessitate they water down the message [I feel they should be giving.]

As it is, you don't really need to be liberal or conservative to be part of occupy, but I am not sure if that will stand if a real party is formed.

Also I have little to no confidence in our voting system and believe that it would only weaken their position if they became a party. But meh.

[RedKing]

My gut feeling is this: Romney will win the nomination, and he'll be the 2012 GOP equivalent of John Kerry in the 2004 election: relatively moderate, safe, bland, chosen for "electability", and utterly uninspiring to the base. Obama is the G.W. Bush of 2012: an incumbent who is the Devil incarnate to the opposing party, and suffers from lukewarm popularity even within his own party. However, "the devil you know" argument will convince most Democrats and assorted liberals to vote for him. May even see the "You don't change horses midstream" rhetoric trotted out during the general election season. Dunno if we'll see Romney "Swift-Boated" somehow, although I'd just have to laugh if it happens. Maybe someone will claim he wore magic underwear to work while he was governor.

Barring any huge surprises, I think Obama wins reelection by a relatively modest margin, say 52-48. The vastly more interesting and important race(s) will be in the makeup of the Congress. Will voters undo the "Tea Party Surge" of 2010, and give Obama a Congress he can work with, or will they throw the Congress even more to the right and leave the country in even more dire gridlock?

[MetalSlimeHunt]

If there's going to be an Occupy Party, I'd hope it's initial objective would be to break Congress' corrupt power structure by universally preventing incumbents from achieving re-election, even if the Occupy candidate doesn't win. That would be a good start in clearing the US government of its problem causers.

[Criptfeind]

See. I mean. In many causes if the occupy party does not win, that would leave the same people they were trying to out with a even larger chance of winning. A issue to be sure.

[shadenight123]

If there's going to be an Occupy Party, I'd hope it's initial objective would be to break Congress' corrupt power structure by universally preventing incumbents from achieving re-election, even if the Occupy candidate doesn't win. That would be a good start in clearing the US government of its problem causers.

i always think that, in the event of a true coup d'etat for changing the system, but by passing by it's laws, the first thing i'd ever ask to be passed as a bill is the:
"crime of malgoverning"=whenever during your rule, your country has suffered economically because of YOUR horrible privileges, which could have been avoided by reducing your numbers/salary/ministries, you get all your belongings confiscated by the new government.
and obviously i'd pass also a "maximum" salary for actors/football players/artists in general: no more than the same as a middle class earner.
if you have milions, spend them on the people, not on having a sexy star in a overbudget and horrible film.

[GlyphGryph]

As it is, you don't really need to be liberal or conservative to be part of occupy, but I am not sure if that will stand if a real party is formed.

An Occupy party would, hopefully, avoid weighing in on issues unrelated to those they find important (though individual candidates might), and focus on breaking the power structure, fixing corruption, and financial and systemic reform.

I'd vote for them.

[Criptfeind]

I don't really want a congress person who just abstains on everything.

[lemon10]

i always think that, in the event of a true coup d'etat for changing the system, but by passing by it's laws, the first thing i'd ever ask to be passed as a bill is the:
"crime of malgoverning"=whenever during your rule, your country has suffered economically because of YOUR horrible privileges, which could have been avoided by reducing your numbers/salary/ministries, you get all your belongings confiscated by the new government.
and obviously i'd pass also a "maximum" salary for actors/football players/artists in general: no more than the same as a middle class earner.
if you have milions, spend them on the people, not on having a sexy star in a overbudget and horrible film.

The problem isn't the actors/football players/artists.
The problem is the captains of industry/financial gurus.

[GlyphGryph]

I don't really want a congress person who just abstains on everything.

Well, then, its good that no one suggested such a thing, isn't it?

[Andir]

As it is, you don't really need to be liberal or conservative to be part of occupy, but I am not sure if that will stand if a real party is formed.

An Occupy party would, hopefully, avoid weighing in on issues unrelated to those they find important (though individual candidates might), and focus on breaking the power structure, fixing corruption, and financial and systemic reform.

Essentially, what the Tea Party movement was before it was claimed by Conservatives...  There was really one set of goals: lower taxes, justification of spending, and transparency.

[GlyphGryph]

I'm sick of elections constantly being hijacked by "values" that are pretty much irrelevant in the long run, or better decided on a cultural level anyways.

If I was elected, I'd do everything I could to make good decisions and fight corruption and tighten laws and enforcements in government and financial areas, but for "values" issues? I could honestly give a damn, unless there's some major flaw in the reasoning of a proposed bill, and I'd probably just run a poll and go with whatever it said.

[Criptfeind]

Well, then, its good that no one suggested such a thing, isn't it?

An Occupy party would, hopefully, avoid weighing in on issues unrelated to those they find important (though individual candidates might)

[Nadaka]

Well, then, its good that no one suggested such a thing, isn't it?

An Occupy party would, hopefully, avoid weighing in on issues unrelated to those they find important (though individual candidates might)

Just because a party doesn't take a stance on a topic, does not mean its representative can not take a personal stance on it.

[Criptfeind]

The representatives taking a stance on something is no different then the party taking a stance on something.