[Nemesis6]

It seems like the Republicans are trying to destroy things they don't like under the guise of deficit concerns. For example: Defund NPR, slashing the deficit 0.000004%, then go on to cannibalize the sloppy patchwork they call "Medicare". I think this article here is one of the best at clarifying what the Tea Party is about: http://www.rollingstone.com/politics/news/matt-taibbi-on-the-tea-party-20100928

By the way: I bring up the Tea Party here because the Tea Party and the Republicans are one and the same. Criticize one, and it boomerangs onto the other.

[Drogoth]

It seems like the Republicans are trying to destroy things they don't like under the guise of deficit concerns. For example: Defund NPR, slashing the deficit 0.000004%, then go on to cannibalize the sloppy patchwork they call "Medicare". I think this article here is one of the best at clarifying what the Tea Party is about: http://www.rollingstone.com/politics/news/matt-taibbi-on-the-tea-party-20100928

By the way: I bring up the Tea Party here because the Tea Party and the Republicans are one and the same. Criticize one, and it boomerangs onto the other.

Thats the problem. The republicans have been hijacked by a xenophobic and ultra conservative fringe movement.

When media neutrality was allowed to expire it set the ground work for this.

Fox News has become the professional media attack dog and propaganda mouthpiece for the radical right wing, MSNBC has become the same thing for the radical left. Theres no room for moderates to speak and that needs to change NOW. America's government cannot be paralyzed by partisan hatred and hackery when facing the largest financial crisis the world has ever seen. There is no civil discourse anymore, and its sickening to watch. The right screams at the left and the left screams back. The few voices that try to mediate are silenced because they don't make for good headlines.

The news media must be more impartial then it is, lunatics like Keith Oberman and Glenn Beck just make the situation worse.

There is no more time for dithering, republicans and democrats have to work together, they have to reach a compromise and fix the crisis America is facing, because time's running out, and the rest of us can't afford to wait.

[achtung]

We're all getting to caught up in our attempts to troll one another. The parties do not disagree over real issues anymore (if they ever really did), it's all about the drama of interpersonal relationships and making sure your team wins. It's becoming reality TV!

[Nemesis6]

Speaking of which... American politics would actually lend themselves well to a WWF-wrestling format quite easily:

YEAH I GOT A MESSAGE FOR YOU, OBAMUNATOR! GOD IS GONNA HELP ME KICK YOUR SOCIALIST ASS ON MONDAY. TEACH THE CONTROVERSY, BABY!

On an only slightly more serious note: Why do conservatives exalt Reagan? Palin calls the GOP "the party of Reagan", but Reagan is the one who began running up the deficit. Why the double standard?

[Nuclear1]

WHAT ARE YOU GONNA DO BROTHER WHEN NO ONE WILL VOTE FOR YOU?!

[Nuke]

liek leegalize marijuana already

[Suongadon]

On an only slightly more serious note: Why do conservatives exalt Reagan? Palin calls the GOP "the party of Reagan", but Reagan is the one who began running up the deficit. Why the double standard?

Because, you see, first, he's Reagan and second... Oh ****! Did you see that? I like dropped my gum and it bounced across the floor! Hold on a minute, I gotta pick it up.

[Grizzly]

What do people see as the most likely scenario for the US in the next twenty years? Should I be, like, trying to move?

I doubt it is going to collapse, but just because it hasn't devolved into anarchy doesn't mean it'll be a good place to live. Planning to run for the hills myself. Of Paris, or possibly Scandinavia, though Persona terrifies the hell out of me.

Go to belgium. Quite familiar, but a much cozier athmossphere.

[perihelion]

I would like to pass new legislation that forbids anyone who has been affiliated with a political party in the last 15 years from running for office.  That and/or apply and extend the old Clarke maxim that "No one who wants to be made president should be allowed the job" to the state and federal legislature as well as the executive office.  [/pipe dream littered with unintended consequences]

[Kosh]

What do people see as the most likely scenario for the US in the next twenty years? Should I be, like, trying to move?

For the next 20 years I intend to stay far far away from the US to the greatest extent possible. We've spent the last 30 years getting a free ride from the rest of the world with massive borrowing fueled by ultra loose credit and monetary policies. But, party time is over. Unless radical change happens, our current stagflation, runaway deficits and debts arn't going away. Unfortunately both parties are either too hopelessly ineffective and/or trapped by ideology to remember that this is a serious crisis, so said radical change isn't likely to happen.

[Sushi]

I would like to pass new legislation that forbids anyone who has been affiliated with a political party in the last 15 years from running for office.  That and/or apply and extend the old Clarke maxim that "No one who wants to be made president should be allowed the job" to the state and federal legislature as well as the executive office.  [/pipe dream littered with unintended consequences]

One of the many major problems with governing people is that of whom you get to do it; or rather of who manages to get people to let them do it to them.
To summarize: it is a well known fact, that those people who most want to rule people are, ipso facto, those least suited to do it.
To summarize the summary: anyone who is capable of getting themselves made president should on no account be allowed to do the job.
To summarize the summary of the summary: people are a problem.

--Douglas Adams

[Mongoose]

I feel like Battuta desperately needs to do one of his patented drive-by sanity injections in here.

[Scotty]

BATTUTA FOR PRESIDENT

[Flipside]

A lot of the obsession with Reagan is Nostlagia, I think. I grew up during the Thatcher/Reagan years, I remember them well, though from a young teenager perspective, so I was shielded from the worst effects of it because I had no financial responsibilities. I can understand the pining for those times, but unless that person is 50 or over, I'd suspect rose-tinted glasses to be involved in their perspective of it.

I personally suspect it wasn't that we were better people back then, just that without the Internet and with a much less invasive News service with regards to the Government and its politics (Thatcher kept a close eye on the BBC, which was historically left-leaning), we were simply less aware of what was really going on until some time afterwards. As a teenager back then, if Reagan launched a cruise missile at an Arab country, it was because he was shooting at the 'bad guys', no questions asked. It got complicated after that, and many people have a genetic revulsion to stuff that is complicated, especially if it also involves Change.

[Ravenholme]

Speaking of which... American politics would actually lend themselves well to a WWF-wrestling format quite easily:

YEAH I GOT A MESSAGE FOR YOU, OBAMUNATOR! GOD IS GONNA HELP ME KICK YOUR SOCIALIST ASS ON MONDAY. TEACH THE CONTROVERSY, BABY!

On an only slightly more serious note: Why do conservatives exalt Reagan? Palin calls the GOP "the party of Reagan", but Reagan is the one who began running up the deficit. Why the double standard?

Here's why:

[Unknown Target]

On a more serious note, Reagan was the leader of the "Republican Revolution" that swept the party into majority rule after the 70s. He was also, to many Republicans, the hero that "won the Cold War". That's why they idolize him so much.

[Ravenholme]

On a more serious note, Reagan was the leader of the "Republican Revolution" that swept the party into majority rule after the 70s. He was also, to many Republicans, the hero that "won the Cold War". That's why they idolize him so much.

>Implying American Politics can be taken seriously. Har Har.

Okay, I'm kidding, but to the eyes of those of us outside the country who pay more than passing attention to the American Political situation, it's becoming increasingly like watching two kids bickering in the school yard.

I think your nation needs to shake it's bipartisan political system and introduce some diversity/new blood, the political gene pool is stagnating. And enforce Media impartiality.

N.B. I'm not saying that political systems such as the one in my own country are better, just pointing out what I see as the most obvious flaw in the American system.

[Flipside]

I will admit that I have often been confused by the American use of the word 'Liberal', it seems to encompass anybody who doesn't share the political viewpoint of the person speaking at the time. Being liberal is pretty difficult to be honest, because what most liberals are, is left-wing in some views and right-wing on other, so they might believe in the UK that the NHS is worth fighting for, but that Local Government is top-heavy both in personel and salary structure. It's quite common for people who consider themselves to be 'Liberal' in political position in the UK to disagree over the minutae of what they actually think Liberal is.

I'll admit, in our case it's partly because the 'Liberal Democrats' our, for want of a better description, representitives in the Commons have turned out to be nothing whatsoever like us. I'd even go so far as to suggest that something similar is happening in the US with the major parties there.

[Ravenholme]

I will admit that I have often been confused by the American use of the word 'Liberal', it seems to encompass anybody who doesn't share the political viewpoint of the person speaking at the time. Being liberal is pretty difficult to be honest, because what most liberals are, is left-wing in some views and right-wing on other, so they might believe in the UK that the NHS is worth fighting for, but that Local Government is top-heavy both in personel and salary structure. It's quite common for people who consider themselves to be 'Liberal' in political position in the UK to disagree over the minutae of what they actually think Liberal is.

I'll admit, in our case it's partly because the 'Liberal Democrats' our, for want of a better description, representitives in the Commons have turned out to be nothing whatsoever like us. I'd even go so far as to suggest that something similar is happening in the US with the major parties there.

I find it somewhat amusing that the Americans see their Democrats as "Leftist", whereas the majority of the world see them as Centre-Right, with the Republicans being Far-Right (but not Extreme)

Oh, and I utterly agree with you Flipside. It's the only reason I don't vote Lib Dem - there seems to be a disconnect between what we believe the term means and what the party should do, and what the politicians actually believe in. As witnessed in the bizarre choice to side with the Conservatives, something that should've been the last thing the Lib Dems would have considered.

But enough of the UK politik digression.

[Hades]

>Implying American Politics can be taken seriously. Har Har.

Okay, I'm kidding, but to the eyes of those of us outside the country who pay more than passing attention to the American Political situation, it's becoming increasingly like watching two kids bickering in the school yard.

I think your nation needs to shake it's bipartisan political system and introduce some diversity/new blood, the political gene pool is stagnating. And enforce Media impartiality.

N.B. I'm not saying that political systems such as the one in my own country are better, just pointing out what I see as the most obvious flaw in the American system.

There should have been no kidding! American politics is exactly like two kids bickering in the school yard.