 |
||
 |
 |
 |
 |
 |
| Anyone really think anything will change no matter who wins the White House? by Tansin A. Darcos (TDARCOS) 09/04/2012, 4:06am PDT | ||||
 |
 |
|||
| Someone made an important point, that politics has gotten so bitterly polarized and basically everyone in politics considers every issue to be on the order of life and death, that granting anything to the other side represents rank treason, that does anyone really expect anything to change?
If Obama gets re-elected the Congress will still be held on one side by the Republicans, who will continue their single-minded campaign to make everything as bad as possible and try to blame it on the Democrats, that they won't be willing to compromise on anything. (This will be a modification of their current campaign, which is to do everything possible to prevent Obama from getting anything done and turn him into a one-term president.) If Romney gets elected the Congress will still be held on one side by the Democrats, who will not be happy with the way the Republicans treated their candidate and stalled on everything, and will return the favor to them, by blocking anything he wants to try, with the intent to be sure that Romney nor the Republicans get nothing accomplished and no credit for anything, and to endeavor to be sure that Romney is a one-term candidate. Someone pointed out that back in the 1960s and 1970s you actually had four political parties in Congress. Liberal Democrats, Liberal Republicans, Conservative Democrats and Conservative Republicans. The Republicans now have basically purged (practically in the sense of Lenin-style Soviet purges) anyone who might be anything other than hard-right conservatives, and most of the Democratic base tends to be liberal, if not extreme liberal to hard-left. So, both sides are basically on opposite ends of the spectrum, see the other side as the living embodiment of pure evil, and cannot consider any form of compromise or agreement. Plus I suspect the Republicans had sort of an ownership mentality over the White House, they felt it was theirs, and they saw Obama as an usurper, plus the unstated racism and brain-dead moronic stupidity of the Birther movement claiming he's either born in Kenya or that his Hawaii birth certificate was faked. The Donald really milked that scenario for all the publicity he could get out of it, didn't he? All this talk of trying to make claims that Obama was born outside of the United States are the sort of ridiculous political stands to raise spurious issues. I notice none of those people who were making the specious claims that Obama was born outside the United States breathed so much as a word about the fact that John McCain was born outside of the United States (he was born in the Canal Zone in Panama.) It was just a way to expose race-based disapproval of Obama in a way that was supposedly socially acceptable rather than just openly admitting they didn't like the idea of a black man in the White House. I didn't think either candidate was really all that good. Obama was just another leftist, and probably not more than a dime's difference from Hillary, and McCain both basically could not find a way to show he was anything other than George Bush Jr's 3rd term. Plus he picked a nonentity of dubious usefulness as Vice President. Who the hell was Sarah Palin anyway, and if he wanted a woman on the ticket, she was the best one in the Republican mindset he could find? People mentioned a lot of choices, including Elizabeth Dole, wife of the Senator and previous presidential candidate, who had experience in managing a large organization as the ran the American Red Cross for a few years. All we really ended up with in Sarah Palin is a celebrity wannabe who made a boatload of money with endorsement and TV deals until her 15 minutes were up. "This has been an official opinion of the Real Tansin A. Darcos, and I approved this message!" |
||||
 |
 |
|||
|
