Presidential Election

[Drunkencorgimaster]

He just did it. Incredible. I am amazed that a president with as lousy of an economic record as Obama can get re-elected. Unbelievable that democrats were claiming the US economy in 2004 was terrible, and yet they could support four more years of this? Will they still be blaming Bush in 2016?

Or was Romney just that pathetic of a candidate?

Beats me. I didn't vote for either of them.

[DarkLink]

Romney was stuck between a rock and a hard place. For one, he's mormon. People seem to hate mormons. Secondly, he was actually such a moderate candidate that Republicans wouldn't initially accept him, so he had to campaign as a hardcore conservative just to get his base that he alienated a lot of non-Republicans because everyone though he was an extremist. And those mormons are crazy, too, who wants one of them as President:rolleyes:. Especially when they're also extremist conservatives.

The popular vote is also extremely close. As of this post, CNN puts it at 49-49%. Obama won the electoral college. People didn't like Obama's distinct lack of change, and his reacharound for wallstreet, but they also didn't like Romney because of his hit-or-miss campaign. Obama's supporters just happened to live in the right states to get him the win.


Edit:
I'm just glad we don't have to put up with any "OMG, why would you elect/vote for Romney" from condescending douchebags worldwide. If Romney had won, I guarantee Facebook would be flooded with that crap, as if we hadn't already had enough of that over the last few months. With Obama's win, at worst we'll just have a repeat of the last four years of mute grumbling.


Edit 2:
And currently, Romney's actually winning the popular vote.

Edit 3:
And while I'm not an Obama fan, this article brings up excellent points: http://www.cnn.com/2012/11/04/opinion/avlon-vote-stakes/index.html?iid=article_sidebar

[Necron2.0]

What I cannot believe is that literally nothing changed. We still have the same Congress that has been SOOO effectual and keeping our economy going and we have the same President that's single handedly made the Bush era spending spree look like pocket change. This entire election has been a referendum on stagnation. Time to get your money out of the stock market because that b'yotch is going down like a twenty buck whore..

[Rev. Tiberius Jackhammer]

Personally, I think he was the right choice (although as an adult whose birth country's restricted nationality to the point I have nowhere to vote, I don't care to get into a discussion about this :P).

Glad to see that Obama's leading in the popular vote by a reasonable margin at this point in time, dislike it when the electoral vote disagrees with the popular.

[Wildeybeast]

Romney was stuck between a rock and a hard place. For one, he's mormon. People seem to hate mormons. Secondly, he was actually such a moderate candidate that Republicans wouldn't initially accept him, so he had to campaign as a hardcore conservative just to get his base that he alienated a lot of non-Republicans because everyone though he was an extremist. And those mormons are crazy, too, who wants one of them as President:rolleyes:. Especially when they're also extremist conservatives.

The popular vote is also extremely close. As of this post, CNN puts it at 49-49%. Obama won the electoral college. People didn't like Obama's distinct lack of change, and his reacharound for wallstreet, but they also didn't like Romney because of his hit-or-miss campaign. Obama's supporters just happened to live in the right states to get him the win.


Edit:
I'm just glad we don't have to put up with any "OMG, why would you elect/vote for Romney" from condescending douchebags worldwide. If Romney had won, I guarantee Facebook would be flooded with that crap, as if we hadn't already had enough of that over the last few months. With Obama's win, at worst we'll just have a repeat of the last four years of mute grumbling.


Edit 2:
And currently, Romney's actually winning the popular vote.

Edit 3:
And while I'm not an Obama fan, this article brings up excellent points: http://www.cnn.com/2012/11/04/opinion/avlon-vote-stakes/index.html?iid=article_sidebar

We just don't like Romney because he came over here and insulted one of our few moments of deserved national pride and success (the Olympics). Never a good way to get the Brits onside (not that we matter at all in American foreign policy). :p

As a genuine question to those who know and not intended as a dig, was Romney really the best candidate the Republicans could find? From what I understand, normally a President with Obama's economic record would be out on his ear and Romney lost out on the nomination last time to Mcain who lost to Obama and who also lost out to Bush, who was an idiot. It just seems from an uninformed outside view that the Republicans are scraping the bottom of the barrel. Aren't there any younger go getters who can re-energise the party? Are these candidates getting the nomination because of a lack of credible alternatives or because Republicans like sticking with what they know (even when that isn't working)?

[Psychosplodge]

IDK Wildey it's only like looking at the bunch of muppets in the top party Jobs for us....

I would like to thank my American brethren for not ushering in cold war two. Even if Romney was only play acting an extreme rightwing nutjob he did a convincing enough impression to scare me.

https://fbcdn-sphotos-h-a.akamaihd.net/hphotos-ak-prn1/66518_480900758617007_1527866715_n.png

[Wolfshade]

I think if I was an American I would have voted for Romney, after all Obama the man of change who will close Gitmo down has seemingly not done this.
As a non-American I am glad Romney didn't win as his foriegn affairs seemed a bit iffy to me

[Wildeybeast]

Sort of, but our system is different. We do have a fairly regular turnover of them (not least due to their own incompetence) and younger MP's do get a chance to work their way up the ladder. And parties can and do oust sitting leaders when they feel they aren't up to the job and there has been a trend since Major for younger and more dynamic leaders being chosen to shake up their parties (or at least to make it look like they are). I'm wondering what the chances are of that happening with Republicans given the Democrats had a woman and a black man running for the nomination last time. Do Republicans get those sort of feelings for a 'clean sweep', 'fresh new face' sort of thing or do they just stick with the same old?

[Wildeybeast]

I think if I was an American I would have voted for Romney, after all Obama the man of change who will close Gitmo down has seemingly not done this.
As a non-American I am glad Romney didn't win as his foriegn affairs seemed a bit iffy to me

What's iffy about supporting the illegal settlement of Palestinian land and opposing Iranian nuclear programmes? All the American presidents do that.

[Psychosplodge]

They do, that's expected, but sabre rattling with Russia and China? It's not the 80's...

Wish I'd seen this quote earlier


Not being American and having to watch the Americans vote for Romney is like the moment in horror movies when the audience is screaming at the character to not go down to the basement but they still do anyway and then they die a brutal, torturous death…

[Wolfshade]

What's iffy about supporting the illegal settlement of Palestinian land and opposing Iranian nuclear programmes? All the American presidents do that.


They do, that's expected, but sabre rattling with Russia and China? It's not the 80's...

Wish I'd seen this quote earlier

It is the sabre rattling that is a concern, brilliant for the residents, every likes a strong leader who talks tough and opposes idealistic enemies.

[eldargal]

I'm not surprised. Romney was just pathetic.

[Wildeybeast]

We've been sabre rattling with the Russians recently. They poison people over here with plutonium, we hide messages in rocks in Moscow, they steal our world cup..... Never mind the 80's, it's more like a James Bond film.

[Psychosplodge]

Lol not on the same scale really...and they have been poking our airspace with their bombers...

[Wildeybeast]

Forgot about that. Scotland are going to be stuffed when they aren't allowed into NATO.

[Psychosplodge]

Wonder what planes a Scottish airforce could afford/access.

[Wildeybeast]

Some of those old rusty ones they Russians have lying around? They certainly aren't having any of ours (unless they pay for them).

[Wolfshade]

Wonder what planes a Scottish airforce could afford/access.


http://www.anticsonline.co.uk/l.aspx?k=105125732

[Drunkencorgimaster]

I'm wondering what the chances are of that happening with Republicans given the Democrats had a woman and a black man running for the nomination last time.

Actually the Republicans did have a black man (Herman Cain) and a woman (Michelle Bachman) run for the nomination this campaign.

[Kyban]

Actually the Republicans did have a black man (Herman Cain) and a woman (Michelle Bachman) run for the nomination this campaign.
But one couldn't climb his way out of all the scandals and the other was just crazy! :p

[DarkLink]

Getting labeled as crazy is standard for Republicans. Or any non-liberals, really. Kind of like how Republicans sometimes label Democrats as unpatriotic. Media bias just lends it more weight.



I would like to thank my American brethren for not ushering in cold war two. Even if Romney was only play acting an extreme rightwing nutjob he did a convincing enough impression to scare me.

This is something I don't get. I only ever hear foreigners say it, and I'm 99% certain that the only reason they say it is because they get lost in the polarized rhetoric and assume the worst about X candidate because they're not seeing the whole picture.

[wittdooley]

Actually the Republicans did have a black man (Herman Cain) and a woman (Michelle Bachman) run for the nomination this campaign.

A black republican candidate will never win. He/she will not get the overwhelming race-related vote like Obama did. He'll be labelled an "uncle tom" by the vocal race-baiters in our country.

[Psychosplodge]

Getting labeled as crazy is standard for Republicans. Or any non-liberals, really. Kind of like how Republicans sometimes label Democrats as unpatriotic. Media bias just lends it more weight.



This is something I don't get. I only ever hear foreigners say it, and I'm 99% certain that the only reason they say it is because they get lost in the polarized rhetoric and assume the worst about X candidate because they're not seeing the whole picture.

Obviously we only see what our press report. I think it was you that said he's really a moderate that had to play up for the right of his party?
It's still quite scary to watch from the outside...

[wittdooley]

Obviously we only see what our press report. I think it was you that said he's really a moderate that had to play up for the right of his party?
..

This is correct. And lost in all of that was how successful he was as the Governor of Massachusets. A shame, really. We continue on with our glorified party planner and his spendcrazy wife.

[ragnarcissist]

the two party system is a joke, all it does is create animosity and division between us.... let third and fourth party candidates debate and campaign with the rest. im just happy i voted for myself

[DarkLink]

Obviously we only see what our press report. I think it was you that said he's really a moderate that had to play up for the right of his party?
It's still quite scary to watch from the outside...

Go back and look at his voting record before the campaign. Same with Ryan. Both openly supported things such as their own versions of healthcare laws that you would expect to see from a liberal. Ryan supports gay marriage, iirc, Romney has supported gun control measures, etc. And while Romney opposes abortion, he only recently settled on that and he accepts rape cases and such and is generally pretty mild on that spectrum. Neither are liberals, but they're certainly not extremists.

[Psychosplodge]

It's funny when you say liberal, as your version of starts a lot further right than ours does :D



Seriously though, just about all the swing states appear to have gone democrat. In terms of Presidential election would it not make more sense to have a straight popular vote?

[wittdooley]

It's funny when you say liberal, as your version of starts a lot further right than ours does :D



Seriously though, just about all the swing states appear to have gone democrat. In terms of Presidential election would it not make more sense to have a straight popular vote?

Well of course it would, especially when considering that we have two states that divy up their electoral votes based on congressional district (Maine & Nebraska; so ostensibly, Maine could share it's electoral votes between two candidates).

As to Romney's stance on abortion: He's been pretty clear that while he morally is opposed to it, he does not believe it's the federal governments place to enact legislation to ban it.

[Mr Mystery]

But would he bow to party pressure? I have to say I admire him on his abortion stance. It's not often a pro-lifer (and I'm trying to be tactful here, apologies in advance if I fall short) remembers it's not their opinion that matters, but the woman facing the dilemma.

As an aside, when it comes to swing states, how much do the ravings of the more frothing politicians affect the Presidential vote?

[DarkLink]

During the campaign, yes. During his presidency, it's not nearly as likely. Maybe if the GOP got legislation through to his desk he'd maybe sign it, but the GOP doesn't have the numbers to do that anyways, not by a long shot, so it wouldn't have mattered. Obama's presidency has been more moderate than his previous political stances in general.


What you also have to remember is that the life of the child is what matters to pro-lifers. That's where the 'life' part of the term comes from. They don't dislike abortion because they hate women, they dislike abortion because they dislike killing babies. Condescending moral stances can go both ways, and both sides forget that the other isn't a bunch of hatemongers trying to oppress women/kill babies, neither of which are good things. It's just as easy to say "mom's don't have a right to murder their children" as it is to say "respect a women's choice", and the difference is merely a shift in perspective.

Recognizing that shift in perspective is why I say that Romney isn't an extremist on that issue.

[wittdooley]

Exactly. You have to remember that, for a country that was founded on the principle of freedom of religion, it is often the devout that are most vilified in the United States. Talk to a liberal hipster atheist and the minute they find out you're a practicing Christian/Catholic the condescension and disrespect begins.

[DarkLink]

I saw a lot of that about Romney's Mormonism. No wonder they kept fleeing until they found Utah, somewhere no one else really wants to live.

[Mr Mystery]

The perspective thing is likely why us Britons tend to go by party. It's how our political system works.

The Prime Minister isn't voted for, but his party is. Hence why we tend to look to the Party overall, even in US elections. Where they have even a clutch of fundamentalists of any stripe, we would see that as a reason not to vote for them, regardless of whether or not the Presidential candidate is part of it or not.

[Psychosplodge]

As to Romney's stance on abortion: He's been pretty clear that while he morally is opposed to it, he does not believe it's the federal governments place to enact legislation to ban it.

So he's pro-choice then - which is not the same as pro-abortion


What you also have to remember is that the life of the child is what matters to pro-lifers. That's where the 'life' part of the term comes from. They don't dislike abortion because they hate women, they dislike abortion because they dislike killing babies. Condescending moral stances can go both ways, and both sides forget that the other isn't a bunch of hatemongers trying to oppress women/kill babies, neither of which are good things. It's just as easy to say "mom's don't have a right to murder their children" as it is to say "respect a women's choice", and the difference is merely a shift in perspective.
That's pro-birth, not pro-life, Don't make me whip out my new favourite Nun quote :D

Exactly. You have to remember that, for a country that was founded on the principle of freedom of religion, it is often the devout that are most vilified in the United States. Talk to a liberal hipster atheist and the minute they find out you're a practicing Christian/Catholic the condescension and disrespect begins.
I'm sorry but that's fundamentally wrong, the freedom the puritans wanted was the freedom to persecute other religions, which the Crown didn't want as it causes civil unrest.


The perspective thing is likely why us Britons tend to go by party. It's how our political system works.

The Prime Minister isn't voted for, but his party is. Hence why we tend to look to the Party overall, even in US elections. Where they have even a clutch of fundamentalists of any stripe, we would see that as a reason not to vote for them, regardless of whether or not the Presidential candidate is part of it or not.

I never considered that, you're probably right thinking about.

[Wildeybeast]

I'm sorry but that's fundamentally wrong, the freedom the puritans wanted was the freedom to persecute other religions, which the Crown didn't want as it causes civil unrest.

Yeah, after Cromwell's stint on the throne, we realised that giving religious extremists any kind of power was probably not a good idea. Shame the rest of the world still hasn't cottoned on 400 years later.

[Wolfshade]

I'd say probably before Cromwell with the chopping and changing of religion between Anglican and Roman Catholic that caused plenty of termoil

[eldargal]

Cromwell also soured the nation against republicanism, thank God*.


*Who Saves our Queen. Bless him.

Let's not get onto abortion again, went over all that recently.

[Psychosplodge]

Let's not get onto abortion again, went over all that recently.

At least twice...

[Wildeybeast]

I'd say probably before Cromwell with the chopping and changing of religion between Anglican and Roman Catholic that caused plenty of termoil

Absolutely. I just meant that before Cromwell it's always as much to do with politics as religion, Cromwell is the first time you get a dictator who issues edicts based purely on religious rather than political grounds. Which means they were bloody stupid and crystallised British attitudes against the weird, fundamental religious groups. Burning people because they have ideological differences about their faith is one thing, but banning mince pies is beyond the pale.

[eldargal]

Reminds me of one of my favourite quotes:

It is setting a high value upon our opinions, to roast men alive on account of them

[Wolfshade]

:D indeedy.

I might make some mince pies this weekend...

[Psychosplodge]

:D indeedy.

I might make some mince pies this weekend...

Uhh, A chocolate yule log is far superior...

[eldargal]

I always felt Cromwell was probably overthrown 'cos of the Christmas banning thing. I mean get rid of the religious stuff fair enough, but banning plum pudding and mince pies? Political suicide.

'That Cromwell stick is decent enough, sensible views on roast beef and Catholics.'
'But papa, he just banned plum pudding, mince pies and Christmas!'
'Surely not! Plum pudding is as english as watching football'
'Oh right, I forgot, he banned that too'
'...being me my flintlock.'

[Psychosplodge]

I thought Cromwell Died?

[Wolfshade]

I thought Cromwell Died?

That didn't stop him being executed.
Even in Death Justice will be served

[eldargal]

He did, then they dug him up and executed him again because YOU DO NOT MESS WITH PLUM PUDDING!

It was actually Richard Cromwell that was o'erthrow'd, not Oliver. Probably should have specified that.

[Wildeybeast]

I always felt Cromwell was probably overthrown 'cos of the Christmas banning thing. I mean get rid of the religious stuff fair enough, but banning plum pudding and mince pies? Political suicide.

'That Cromwell stick is decent enough, sensible views on roast beef and Catholics.'
'But papa, he just banned plum pudding, mince pies and Christmas!'
'Surely not! Plum pudding is as english as watching football'
'Oh right, I forgot, he banned that too'
'...being me my flintlock.'

I gather people weren't overly fond of being told that dancing was immoral and that they were only allowed on the road on a Sunday when they were going to and from Church.


He did, then they dug him up and executed him again because YOU DO NOT MESS WITH PLUM PUDDING!

He had it coming.

[Drunkencorgimaster]

"Exactly. (1) You have to remember that, for a country that was founded on the principle of freedom of religion, it is often the devout that are most vilified in the United States. (2) Talk to a liberal hipster atheist and the minute they find out you're a practicing Christian/Catholic the condescension and disrespect begins."



I'm sorry but that's fundamentally wrong, the freedom the puritans wanted was the freedom to persecute other religions, which the Crown didn't want as it causes civil unrest.


I truly hate to disagree with anything a fellow fan of Flutteshy would say, but I fear you may have been in error somewhat here.

Are saying he is wrong with regard to the first statement (1)? If so, please keep in mind that Puritans did not found this country. Separatists (not Puritans) founded the Plymouth Colony only. To this day Massachusetts is still full of high-minded, persecutorial, righteous, hypocritical dickheads like Elizabeth Warren who love to tell everyone else how to live their lives. In fact Jamestown, Virginia was founded several years before Plymouth by mainstream Church of England people. By the way, would you Brits be interested in taking back Massachusetts?

Keep in mind too that when Americans say "this country" they usually mean the United States as a whole which certainly was founded on religious freedom (despite what my former governor Mike Huckabee says) nearly two centuries after the Plymouth Colony.

If you were referring to statement (2), I don't think he meant "liberal" in the classical liberal (John S. Mill) sense like you still use sometimes in the UK. I think he meant "leftist" in which case, yes, leftists in this country do look down their noses at anyone who is a devout Christian. If you are a Pure Land Buddhist, or a New-Age Pagan though, that kind of stuff is cool. I actually think leftists sometimes cut us Catholics a little bit of a break because we're not fundamentalists and Kennedy & Biden were/are Catholic. I could be wrong on that though.

Having said all that you are still correct as ever on how great Fluttershy is and I bow to your wisdom on any pony-related matter (which, let's face it, are more important than US politics).

[Psychosplodge]

lol, I suppose that's a difference right there, generally I consider the founding the settlement, I suppose Yourselves probably do see it as post (misguided:D) rebellion. Founding order is sketchy, I don't even recall Jamestown really coming up in History.
I'm not sure I'd go as far to say separatists founded it(well if you take the founding as later than settling I suppose they did.), I'd probably learn more towards economic migrants...
On point 2 not being a leftie or a hipster I couldn't comment.

[wittdooley]

If you are a Pure Land Buddhist, or a New-Age Pagan though, that kind of stuff is cool. I actually think leftists sometimes cut us Catholics a little bit of a break because we're not fundamentalists and Kennedy & Biden were/are Catholic. I could be wrong on that though.
.

It's because being hip to Buddhism/Taoism/any other non-Christian Religion means you are a "child of the world" in the eyes of the hipster and only serves to broaden your "diversity." Quite frankly, all I can think of when I read your comment was Russell Brand's character in Forgetting Sarah Marshall, the one with all the different religious tattoos that have conflicting dogmas.

I agree about Catholics, I think, and I honestly think it's in large part to A) You have to recognize the amount of service the Catholic church does for the poor, and B) the Catholic Church, unlike many other sects of Christianity, doesn't really throw anything in your face. Not only that, but many practicing American catholics are able to take a joke or two here and there about Catholicism.

@EG -- Sorry to bring up the abortion issue again, but it played such a huge role in this election that it deserves every ounce of press it gets, especially since Romney's viewpoints on it were so grossly misrepresented by the mainstream media. I've spoken to four women since Tuesday that voted primarily on these two issues (gay marriage/abortion, which I think it shameful and ignorant, but that's a different convo) and had no idea that Romney has stated multiple times that he'd never legislate against them. Cluelss. The primary issue they voted on they didn't actually know the well documented, never disputed truth. Embarassing if you ask me.

[Wildeybeast]

By the way, would you Brits be interested in taking back Massachusetts?

Depends. What's good about it? You lot were pretty troublesome and ungrateful last time we were in charge, so it's going to have to have some pretty good selling points before we start protecting you from the French again.



@EG -- Sorry to bring up the abortion issue again, but it played such a huge role in this election that it deserves every ounce of press it gets, especially since Romney's viewpoints on it were so grossly misrepresented by the mainstream media. I've spoken to four women since Tuesday that voted primarily on these two issues (gay marriage/abortion, which I think it shameful and ignorant, but that's a different convo) and had no idea that Romney has stated multiple times that he'd never legislate against them. Cluelss. The primary issue they voted on they didn't actually know the well documented, never disputed truth. Embarassing if you ask me.

Was the issue not whether he was pro-life or pro-choice but that he has failed to maintain a consistent view on it over the years? Given his unclear and changing stance (http://abcnews.go.com/Politics/OTUS/mitt-romneys-abortion-evolution/story?id=17443452#.UJvt5WcXp8E) I don't see how you can blame people for worrying about exactly what he will do.

[Psychosplodge]

It's obviously important to them...At least it's slightly better than football team style party support...

[DarkLink]

His stance was pretty clear, if you actually bothered to do any research. He used to be in favor of abortion. Several years ago, he decided that he, personally, was against it, but would not legislate on it. Pretty straightforward. Everything else is just campaign bull**** and nit-picky details, which everyone should be smart enough to take with a massive grain of salt.

Why do people think politicians changing their mind is a bad thing? That's stupid. Rational people change their mind when they receive new information or find out their original logic was flawed in some way. Do you want irrational leaders? Accusing a politician of being flip-floppy is one of the most nonsensical criticisms I've ever heard.

[Wildeybeast]

It's an important issue. It's just not high on the agenda over here because the majority of the country is pro-choice so there is really no point bringing it up as an election issue.

[Psychosplodge]

Rational people change their mind when they receive new information or find out their original logic was flawed in some way. Do you want irrational leaders? Accusing a politician of being flip-floppy is one of the most nonsensical criticisms I've ever heard.

But if you can't see the logic in his change, or he's too changeable, you either can't trust him to deliver what he's saying now, or predict which way he'll jump on any issue that matters to you. Just ask anyone in this country who voted lib-dem if they will again with Nick Clegg in charge still...there's probably someone on the board that did.

[Wildeybeast]

His stance was pretty clear, if you actually bothered to do any research. He used to be in favor of abortion. Several years ago, he decided that he, personally, was against it, but would not legislate on it. Pretty straightforward. Everything else is just campaign bull**** and nit-picky details, which everyone should be smart enough to take with a massive grain of salt.

Why do people think politicians changing their mind is a bad thing? That's stupid. Rational people change their mind when they receive new information or find out their original logic was flawed in some way. Do you want irrational leaders? Accusing a politician of being flip-floppy is one of the most nonsensical criticisms I've ever heard.

I did. I found that article. And a lot of others on a similar track.

Whilst he might not be saying he was going to legislate against it, he did say he would cut funding which is a pretty clear anti-abortion stance. And changing his mind on a piece of policy because it doesn't work or is unpopular is one thing, this is a fundamental change in his ethical attitude. I'm not saying his stance is wrong, or that he isn't allowed to change his mind, I'm just saying that people doubting his motivations for that change or being worried about what he will actually do is perfectly understandable. If he has already changed his views on it once, it is a legitimate concern that he might change them again to 'I do want to legislate against abortion'.

On a general point, people think politicians changing their minds is bad thing because it means they either got something wrong or they are doing it because it is unpopular which makes you doubt the courage of their convictions. Neither is something you want to see in the people in charge of your country.

[wittdooley]

I did. I found that article. And a lot of others on a similar track.

Whilst he might not be saying he was going to legislate against it, he did say he would cut funding which is a pretty clear anti-abortion stance. And changing his mind on a piece of policy because it doesn't work or is unpopular is one thing, this is a fundamental change in his ethical attitude. I'm not saying his stance is wrong, or that he isn't allowed to change his mind, I'm just saying that people doubting his motivations for that change or being worried about what he will actually do is perfectly understandable. If he has already changed his views on it once, it is a legitimate concern that he might change them again to 'I do want to legislate against abortion'.



Correct me if I'm off here, but didn't he say he'd cut FEDERAL funding and leave it to the state's discretion? I believe he did, and that falls right in line with the original, constitutional notion of small federal government, not the bloated nurgle-spawn it's become in the US.

As to the changing stance: I personally think it's a non-issue created by the lazy minded. Any educated, informed voter should know that 80% of the bull**** spewed by either candidate DURING the election is exactly that: Bull**** and pandering. The REAL content that should inform a voter is the track record of that politician. Romney's is very clear and so is Obama's. If you put them side by side and didn't attach a name or race, 80% of the United States would vote for Romney. And I don't think that's an understatement.

Somehow in the United States, becoming a successful businessman has become a detriment to your political potential. Obama, before becoming president, was a glorified community organizer and public speaker. And I, as a younger man, succumbed to that rhetoric in the first election (and also because I don't believe McCain would have been as good a leader).

This is different. By all unbiased, rational accounts, Mitt Romney is a more capable than Barack Obama. If you can't look at his governance of Massachusets or his saving of the Salt Lake Winter games, you have your blinders on.

[Psychosplodge]

I didn't think it was possible to even run for president till you'd made a few tens of millions to get your campaign going?

[Necron2.0]

Time to get your money out of the stock market because that b'yotch is going down ...


As I said. The DOW is off again today. Media talking heads trying to spin it as anything other than the election results but ... OF COURSE it was the elections results. DUH!!

And then there is >>this<< (http://money.msn.com/top-stocks/post.aspx?post=5080cc52-2461-47d9-9d19-b087132d00bb), which is of course classic over reaction.

Edit:

Hmm. Looks like MSN Money pulled the article. Probably too controversial. Luckily, this is the internet. Let's see how long the >>Huffington Posts<< (http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2012/11/07/gun-sales-obama_n_2089914.html) article remains up. Basically, the gist of it is Americans are investing in guns, ammunition and those that make them.

[Wildeybeast]

Correct me if I'm off here, but didn't he say he'd cut FEDERAL funding and leave it to the state's discretion? I believe he did, and that falls right in line with the original, constitutional notion of small federal government, not the bloated nurgle-spawn it's become in the US.

As to the changing stance: I personally think it's a non-issue created by the lazy minded. Any educated, informed voter should know that 80% of the bull**** spewed by either candidate DURING the election is exactly that: Bull**** and pandering. The REAL content that should inform a voter is the track record of that politician. Romney's is very clear and so is Obama's. If you put them side by side and didn't attach a name or race, 80% of the United States would vote for Romney. And I don't think that's an understatement.

Somehow in the United States, becoming a successful businessman has become a detriment to your political potential. Obama, before becoming president, was a glorified community organizer and public speaker. And I, as a younger man, succumbed to that rhetoric in the first election (and also because I don't believe McCain would have been as good a leader).

This is different. By all unbiased, rational accounts, Mitt Romney is a more capable than Barack Obama. If you can't look at his governance of Massachusets or his saving of the Salt Lake Winter games, you have your blinders on.

I assume by cutting federal funding the implication is he would leave it up to individual states to fund it themselves as they see fit? I still don't see as how this could be interpreted as anything other than being an anti-abortion move unless it was said in the context of 'I want to decentralise government funding as much as possible and this is just one area'.

I agree entirely they should be judged on their track record and that sensible voters should look past all the election spiel, but the point is most of them don't because they are stupid. Politicians should know this and should know full well that anything they say and do is going to get picked up and torn apart by their opponents and the media, especially changes of policy. So when you do so you need to be absolutely certain that you are doing it because it is the right thing to do and be very clear on your motivations with the public. If you don't it looks like a reactionary and panicky move.

I'm curious as to what he did with the Salt Lake games? Weren't those the ones they got by bribing all the IOC members?


I didn't think it was possible to even run for president till you'd made a few tens of millions to get your campaign going?

The figure of a total spend by both parties of around 5 billion was being bandied around on TV the other day. I think it's safe to say you have to be pretty wealthy to get anywhere near the Presidency.

[Nabterayl]

As a genuine question to those who know and not intended as a dig, was Romney really the best candidate the Republicans could find? From what I understand, normally a President with Obama's economic record would be out on his ear and Romney lost out on the nomination last time to Mcain who lost to Obama and who also lost out to Bush, who was an idiot. It just seems from an uninformed outside view that the Republicans are scraping the bottom of the barrel. Aren't there any younger go getters who can re-energise the party? Are these candidates getting the nomination because of a lack of credible alternatives or because Republicans like sticking with what they know (even when that isn't working)?
To go back to this question, my [American Republican] perspective is this: yes, there are, but the party as a whole needs to sort itself out before they have a halfway reasonable chance of winning a nomination.

As I think we've discussed here before, the Republican party is split between several ideological factions that in a Parliamentary system would probably just be their own parties. The Republican "coalition," as it were, includes too many ideological factions at the moment to produce a young go-getter who can energize anything. There aren't any young go-getters who can energize the federalists, proponents of small government, proponents of fiscal responsibility, proponents of low taxes, proponents of social legislation, isolationists, war-hawks (military action hawks?), etc. that live in the Republican tent.

In decades past there was either not as large a divide among the various Republican factions, or they were sufficiently willing to self-identify as "conservative" instead of what they actually are, to operate as a party. I think both McCain and Romney's candidacies illustrate, though, that this is increasingly no longer true. The result is candidates who either are, or end up looking, pathetic, just to please the various factions of their own party. And that leaves their chances of attracting voters outside of their party predictably slim.

[Wildeybeast]

Basically, the gist of it is Americans are investing in guns, ammunition and those that make them.

Isn't that pretty much a constant? We sent Cameron off to the gulf this week to flog some weapons to wealthy sheikhs whilst simultaneously criticising them for using said weapons against civilians. It was brilliant piece of international relations.

[Wildeybeast]

To go back to this question, my [American Republican] perspective is this: yes, there are, but the party as a whole needs to sort itself out before they have a halfway reasonable chance of winning a nomination.

As I think we've discussed here before, the Republican party is split between several ideological factions that in a Parliamentary system would probably just be their own parties. The Republican "coalition," as it were, includes too many ideological factions at the moment to produce a young go-getter who can energize anything. There aren't any young go-getters who can energize the federalists, proponents of small government, proponents of fiscal responsibility, proponents of low taxes, proponents of social legislation, isolationists, war-hawks (military action hawks?), etc. that live in the Republican tent.

In decades past there was either not as large a divide among the various Republican factions, or they were sufficiently willing to self-identify as "conservative" instead of what they actually are, to operate as a party. I think both McCain and Romney's candidacies illustrate, though, that this is increasingly no longer true. The result is candidates who either are, or end up looking, pathetic, just to please the various factions of their own party. And that leaves their chances of attracting voters outside of their party predictably slim.

Thanks for answering that. The outsider impression was that he was trying to please to many people and as such no one really knew what they were going to get (see above issue on abortion). There was genuine relief in many countries when Obama got re-elected, simply because Mitt changed his stance of foreign affairs so much in the last few months. Better the devil you know and all that.

On the Republican issue, what is the likelihood of all these different groups forming their own parties? Is it even possible under your system? Do the Democrats have the same divisions?

[Nabterayl]

Democrats do have the same divisions, and a lot of the success of American political parties can be attributed to how well the party elites have managed to convince their own disparate factions that they are all the same party. One way to interpret the importance of Barry Goldwater in American politics is that mid-20th century he essentially unified the Republican party by convincing its factions that they were all "conservatives" - and until recently, Republicans have been notable for being much more cohesive as a party than Democrats. I will bet you that in 60 years people will look at Obama as having had a similar effect on Democrats, just as the Republican party began to re-fragment.

In principle, there is nothing wrong with multiple parties in the American system. We've had three parties for brief periods in the past, and a two-party system isn't written into our constitution (parties themselves are post-constitution in America). We technically have multiple parties right now, but the non-Republican non-Democrat parties are so small they don't really count on the national scene (or in many cases, even on the county and municipal scene). The only major procedural wrinkle that might cause is that our Speaker of the House (president of our lower chamber) is appointed by the majority party in that chamber - and a parliamentary system raises the possibility that there is no majority party. But that hardly seems like a major obstacle.

Pragmatically, we have a long history at this point of the two dominant parties (which have been the two dominant parties at least since our civil war, so about 160 years) trying to hold on to joint control by convincing their various sub-factions to work together outside of a formal parliamentary system. Affiliation with a national party structure provides real benefits in terms of funding, connections, and campaign infrastructure. In order for a nationally relevant third party to form, it would need an equivalent national party structure - and there actually aren't that many people in the United States (or any country, I imagine) who have the skills and experience to coordinate political activity over an entire country, let alone one the size of the U.S. Most of the people who do have those skills are, understandably, pretty deeply invested in the party structures where they acquired them.

So I think what is really needed for a national relevant third party to emerge here is a split within the politically skilled - and I don't think the Republican party is anywhere near fractured enough to generate that. The last time it happened was (simplifying here) in the 19th century, over the issue of slavery - a considerably more divisive issue than any of the disagreements that currently plague the Republicans.

[DarkLink]

The way our voting system is structured just tends to naturally lead to two parties. Any more than two, and you tend to end up instead with one dominate party because you split the votes of the second and third parties. If we had a runoff election system instead, then we could have 4-5 political parties without that issue, and avoid the issues with the electoral college as well because in a runoff system, the winning candidate is guaranteed a majority vote.

Revising campaign funding would be a big plus, too.


I didn't think it was possible to even run for president till you'd made a few tens of millions to get your campaign going?

You have to get money from somewhere, but you don't necessarily have to turn a meager investment into a thriving business by being a highly competent leader in order to do it. While I won't say Obama hasn't been successful, he's pretty much just a random college professor with enough friends in high places and enough charisma to run for office.


I assume by cutting federal funding the implication is he would leave it up to individual states to fund it themselves as they see fit? I still don't see as how this could be interpreted as anything other than being an anti-abortion move unless it was said in the context of 'I want to decentralise government funding as much as possible and this is just one area'.

Just trust us. State vs Federal funding and authority is a complex and nuanced issue that even a lot of Americans don't know much about, let alone foreigners who just catch the highlights. We have multiple levels of government, and sometimes it's tricky straightening out which level is responsible for what. A lot of the healthcare issues were very similar to this, where one candidate or another promised to allocated funding on either a state or federal level for this or for that, which might or might not be construed by their opponent as a net funding cut when it could actually be a net increase, and so on and so forth.

[wittdooley]

I'm curious as to what he did with the Salt Lake games? Weren't those the ones they got by bribing all the IOC members?


High level: he took a games that was in fiscal despair ($400M short of their required funding) and marred by those bribery allegations, reorganized the structure of its politics and management enabling it to, at the end, have a surplus budget of $100M (which went back into the City of Salt Lake City) and effectively saves the games. His turn around was so affective that be wrote a book on it and Harvards business school taught a class on how effective it was at turning around a defecit. Oh yeah, he also donate the entire sum be was paid to head it over 3 years (nearly $1.5M) to charity, so he in effect did it all for free. And he also contributed $1M if his own money to get the fundraising for the games kick started.

Call me crazy, but turning around a defecit seems to be something the American gov't could use a this point in time.

[DarkLink]

It's like a friend of mine said to me yesterday about why she was disappointing that Romney lost (paraphrased); 'Obama's social policies are nice and all, but we need an economic fix and Romney is better at that'. While Obama hasn't been as disastrous for the economy as some opponents have made him out to be, doing O.K. is a long shot from doing well.

[Nabterayl]

On the state vs. federal funding issue, that doesn't have to be cast as a question of funding per se. The very first debates we had about the character of a national government were about what subset of governmental activities it should be responsible for. Everybody agrees our original answer (our first constitution) erred too far on the side of a limited national government, but even our current constitution was written with a strong tendency towards the federal government simply not being authorized to do many, many things that governments do. This principle has eroded over time for many reasons, but the notion of a "limited federal government" still has a lot of cache in American political discourse.

This strain of thought should be distinguished from limited government period. The historical debates that it conjures were not about whether government should be small or big, but whether the central government should be small or big. Thus, it's entirely consistent to take a federalist stance that says one of our state governments can be very intrusive into people's private lives (subject to their own constitutions and the will of their own people, etc.), while the federal government should be hands off. When Romney said that things should be "left to the states," this is what he was appealing to.

[Wolfshade]

Call me crazy, but turning around a defecit seems to be something the American gov't could use a this point in time.
I think that this is more universally true.

I think there are two ideas on trying to reduce the deficiet.

You can either save your way out. This of course means that taxes are hiked, services reduced/withdrawn and can make the party widely unpopular and can risk supressing the economy and thus making any recession longer than it needs, which in turn makes companies scale back and so less money is recieved through tax and more people are dependent on the state for help whose budget for that has already been reduced. This can then lead to an increase in lawlessness putting greater strain on emergency services and producing socio-economic issues that may take years to recover. This is the safer option in my opinion.

You can spend you way out. This is the risker option as it means that the economy must be picked up and gain enough momentum for it to continue to grow without any financial stimulus. This creates jobs, increases tax revenues but their must be the consumer confidence to buy/use the products created as part of the stimulus. If not then you end up in a situation worse than you were before you started as the slump is felt immediatley after the money has dried up rather than the slow and gradual decline. With the deficiet and recession issues being not localised it might be hard to find external investors willing to buy those services produced.

[Mr Mystery]

And in either case, you could also try cracking down on corporate tax evasion, to make sure peeps aren't dodging their fair share.

[Psychosplodge]

This (http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/magazine-20246741) is quite interesting.

[Wildeybeast]

High level: he took a games that was in fiscal despair ($400M short of their required funding) and marred by those bribery allegations, reorganized the structure of its politics and management enabling it to, at the end, have a surplus budget of $100M (which went back into the City of Salt Lake City) and effectively saves the games. His turn around was so affective that be wrote a book on it and Harvards business school taught a class on how effective it was at turning around a defecit. Oh yeah, he also donate the entire sum be was paid to head it over 3 years (nearly $1.5M) to charity, so he in effect did it all for free. And he also contributed $1M if his own money to get the fundraising for the games kick started.

Call me crazy, but turning around a defecit seems to be something the American gov't could use a this point in time.

I see. Hence why he felt qualified to come over here and bad mouth our organisation of the games. That backfired a bit (in your face Mitt!). Oh and they weren't allegations, it happened. In hindsight it was the best thing that could have happened to the IOC because it forced them to clean themselves up and change the way they are run and they've never looked back since.


I think that this is more universally true.

I think there are two ideas on trying to reduce the deficiet.

You can either save your way out. This of course means that taxes are hiked, services reduced/withdrawn and can make the party widely unpopular and can risk supressing the economy and thus making any recession longer than it needs, which in turn makes companies scale back and so less money is recieved through tax and more people are dependent on the state for help whose budget for that has already been reduced. This can then lead to an increase in lawlessness putting greater strain on emergency services and producing socio-economic issues that may take years to recover. This is the safer option in my opinion.

You can spend you way out. This is the risker option as it means that the economy must be picked up and gain enough momentum for it to continue to grow without any financial stimulus. This creates jobs, increases tax revenues but their must be the consumer confidence to buy/use the products created as part of the stimulus. If not then you end up in a situation worse than you were before you started as the slump is felt immediatley after the money has dried up rather than the slow and gradual decline. With the deficiet and recession issues being not localised it might be hard to find external investors willing to buy those services produced.

Option A seems to be working for us at the moment, in the sense that we are out of recession and one independent forecast says we will be the biggest growing economy in Europe over the next two years, though that is largely due to not being in the Euro and having to bailout the whole of the Mediterranean. Of course the debate is whether the labour plan of spending our way out would create more growth.

[Psychosplodge]

Considering they'd already tried that, probably not...

[Wolfshade]

Well yes, that option works well if your neighbours are doing fine, then you chuck money at the economy and get your neighbours to buy your stuff. 10% VAT didn't seem to do anything either.

It's not tax evasion, that is illegal, it is tax avoidance, and most people do it. Most pension schemes where they take your money before it is taxed or any other salary sacrifice schemes are tax avoidance and also let us not forget while they do dodge corporation tax they still pay a huge amount through NI contributions. Please note, I am not defending what they are doing and I wish they would have to pay all the corporation tax that is fairly proportioned.

As we've mentioned Greece, I cannot see that state recovering. A warning from history will show what happens when recession, and huge country debt meet (Hint: Germany after the treaty of versailles)

Whenever I think of Ronmeny and his involvement with the Olympics, I remember his disasterous trip to London and the PM quipping: "'We are holding an Olympic Games in one of the busiest, most active, bustling cities anywhere in the world. Of course it’s easier if you hold an Olympic games in the middle of nowhere.'

[Wildeybeast]

The Greeks are far too lazy for us to worry about them conquering Europe.

[Psychosplodge]

They can't really afford the bullets anyway...

[Wolfshade]

But the rise of the far right is in evidence.

Also finally: http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-politics-20265583

[Wildeybeast]

True, but don't need to worry about any sort of 1930's scenario. Europe is too closely tied together, and the majority of the anger is (incorrectly) directed at Germany who couldn't care less.

Glad to see we are cutting aid to India, that country should be more than capable of solving it's own poverty problems.

[wittdooley]

I see. Hence why he felt qualified to come over here and bad mouth our organisation of the games. That backfired a bit (in your face Mitt!). Oh and they weren't allegations, it happened. In hindsight it was the best thing that could have happened to the IOC because it forced them to clean themselves up and change the way they are run and they've never looked back since.


You of course mean aside from the fact that Rio got the Olympics, somehow inexplicably beating out both Madrid and Tokyo, both of whom had far better presentations and are infinitely better set up for success than Rio in terms of infrastructure :D .



Option A seems to be working for us at the moment, in the sense that we are out of recession and one independent forecast says we will be the biggest growing economy in Europe over the next two years, though that is largely due to not being in the Euro and having to bailout the whole of the Mediterranean. Of course the debate is whether the labour plan of spending our way out would create more growth.

Well, the option B has failed miserably. But then again, when a large portion of your nation's Fortune 500 CEOs come out in the Wall Street Journal and say, in so many words, that they won't be creating any new jobs until this administration proves it's anything but economically inept, that doesn't help.

[Wildeybeast]

You of course mean aside from the fact that Rio got the Olympics, somehow inexplicably beating out both Madrid and Tokyo, both of whom had far better presentations and are infinitely better set up for success than Rio in terms of infrastructure :D .

I'm not saying they are squeaky clean now, but I can see their logic in taking it to Rio, new frontiers, booming economy and all that jazz. They went from China to the UK so it makes sense to go back to somewhere a bit more adventurous Plus a couple of all expense paid months on the beach won't do any of those IOC executives any harm.




Well, the option B has failed miserably. But then again, when a large portion of your nation's Fortune 500 CEOs come out in the Wall Street Journal and say, in so many words, that they won't be creating any new jobs until this administration proves it's anything but economically inept, that doesn't help.

Option B would have been fine if the spending had been controlled in any sort of way or the financial systems had been even slightly regulated. But it wasn't and now everyone is shafted. There is quite a bit of thought that Option B would be a good way to get out of recession, but given that the UK and Germany are very much pro-cuts at the moment, the rest of Europe has no choice but to tow the line (even the recalcitrant French). Is Obama cutting or spending?

[Gotthammer]

Twitter has given us a few good ones @electionfuntimes:


http://i.imgur.com/BQMtF.png

Our 'president' is a prime minister.
He's a she.
She's an athiest.
She's loathed by most of the country (something like 25% approval rating) for several major policy backflips and instituting a tax she promised never to go ahead with.


http://resources3.news.com.au/images/2012/11/06/1226511/219719--romneydeathrally-tweets.jpg

In a last ditch attempt to defeat Obama, Romney calls upon dark forces to aid him (http://www.cheeseburgergothic.com/archives/4553) at the #RomneyDeathRally (https://twitter.com/search?q=%23RomneyDeathRally&src=typd)

[Wildeybeast]

I thought Gillard was quite popular. You learn something new every day. Look on the bright side, you've got the best form of government possible. Your head of state costs you nothing and you only have to see her every ten years or so when she decides to go on tour.

Edit: Some of those tweets are brilliant. I particularly like the one about Meatloaf being eaten by a bat out of hell. I was so disappointed that my hero supported Mitt. At least the Boss stuck with Obama.

[Gotthammer]

Well she is more popular than the leader of the opposition, so that's something I suppose... she's mostly unpopular over taxes and sucking up to the Greens (who used to be somewhat moderate but have gone totally lunatic fringe in the last few years) to hold on to government.
She does get a few props from time to time, like when she flipped out in parliament at the opposition leader (http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=wfo3SGIiSE0) (video also explains why everyone prettymuch hates him).

[Wildeybeast]

Can't watch. ABC apparently doesn't like sharing.

[Gotthammer]

It's worth trying to find a video of, she was fired up as a shock jock had made a horrible joke about her father dying at a Liberal function so she was out for blood (google Gillard calls Abott a mysogynist or the like). Here's a gifset (http://numbtongue.tumblr.com/post/33224110608/ladies-and-gentlemen-the-prime-minister-of) of some of the highlights.

Edit: try this one (http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=JeGeooZOUdE&feature=related).

[Wildeybeast]

She gives him both barrels doesn't she? Your Parliament is just like ours but with funny accents.

[Gotthammer]

The only thing that could have made it better would have been if she flipped the table over at the end :D

[DarkLink]

She gives him both barrels doesn't she? Your Parliament is just like ours but with funny accents.

'Funny accent' from a brit makes me chuckle;).

[Psychosplodge]

'Funny accent' from a brit makes me chuckle;).

Well there's only me that talks proper, everyone else has an accent :D

[Wildeybeast]

'Funny accent' from a brit makes me chuckle;).

Our accents are perfectly normal and sensible. It's you lot who moved somewhere different and started speaking strange. :p

[Drunkencorgimaster]

Our accents are perfectly normal and sensible. It's you lot who moved somewhere different and started speaking strange. :p

Yeah, I think you stay-at-home Brits are technically right on that one. We mixed a bunch of Native American, German, Irish, and Italian accents into our version of English. Ours now sound very authoritative when spoken by pilots, astronauts, presidents, generals and other authority-types but those UK twangs seem a little more shiny somehow.

[DarkLink]

Our accents are perfectly normal and sensible. It's you lot who moved somewhere different and started speaking strange. :p

Ah dunno wha'chy'all talkin' 'bout.

[eldargal]

I enjoyed the PM Gillard speech when I saw it a few weeks ago, nice to see a female politician say those things.

[Wildeybeast]

Yeah, I think you stay-at-home Brits are technically right on that one. We mixed a bunch of Native American, German, Irish, and Italian accents into our version of English. Ours now sound very authoritative when spoken by pilots, astronauts, presidents, generals and other authority-types but those UK twangs seem a little more shiny somehow.

So here's a question. I heard a British actor (can't remember who, might have been Jason Isaacs) saying that American's don't have a particularly good ear for accents. He was talking about it in the context of British actors doing well in American shows/films and was saying that as long as you can do a 'generican' accent, they really don't care what you sound like. By contrast we are incredibly fussy about accents and American's trying to British accents usually get pilloried over here unless they get it right. Is that true, do you guys notice when people are putting on accents which aren't their own?

[eldargal]

Well a large number of Americans are still in denial that Hugh Laurie is British so...

[Nabterayl]

So here's a question. I heard a British actor (can't remember who, might have been Jason Isaacs) saying that American's don't have a particularly good ear for accents. He was talking about it in the context of British actors doing well in American shows/films and was saying that as long as you can do a 'generican' accent, they really don't care what you sound like. By contrast we are incredibly fussy about accents and American's trying to British accents usually get pilloried over here unless they get it right. Is that true, do you guys notice when people are putting on accents which aren't their own?
I do think it's true that our ear for accents is less acute than yours. I'm not sure why that is. I've heard British actors say that they're amazed at how much ground any given American accent covers, whereas the regions of British accents are (by comparison) quite small. That may have something to do with it. Or perhaps accent signifies less in American culture than in the UK (then again, if that's so, maybe it's because we're bad at distinguishing accents)?

[DarkLink]

The various British accents are only subtly different. Unless you live in or travel Britain regularly you're not going to get the difference, no matter what part of the world your from or how varied the accents at home are.

[Wildeybeast]

Well a large number of Americans are still in denial that Hugh Laurie is British so...

TBF, you'd never never know Andrew Lincoln was either if you'd only seen him in Walking Dead.


I do think it's true that our ear for accents is less acute than yours. I'm not sure why that is. I've heard British actors say that they're amazed at how much ground any given American accent covers, whereas the regions of British accents are (by comparison) quite small. That may have something to do with it. Or perhaps accent signifies less in American culture than in the UK (then again, if that's so, maybe it's because we're bad at distinguishing accents)?

To an outside view, you don't seem to have that much variation. The ones from the southern states are quite pronounced, as is the New Yawk one, but otherwise it's hard to tell where in the states you lot are from. So I'd agree with that. By contrast we do have a lot of very distinct variation across the UK so that might be something to do with it.

[Wildeybeast]

The various British accents are only subtly different. Unless you live in or travel Britain regularly you're not going to get the difference, no matter what part of the world your from or how varied the accents at home are.

Sorry, but that is totally wrong. There are a number of fairly subtle accents (mine is one of them), but there are incredibly varied ones. Anyone can tell the difference between Scottish and English for example. If I put you in a room with Geordie (Newcastle), Scouser (Liverpool), Brummie (Birmingham) and Cockney you would instantly be able to tell the difference. You might not know where they from, but you would know they are all different accents.

[DarkLink]

I've watched a video of a guy doing like twenty different British accents. Just because there are a few standouts doesn't change that rest of them so similar that non-British will know what's up. Especially compared to the huge difference in accents you can find in America, even if we don't have a different accent every other town over.

[Wildeybeast]

Someone doing impressions of accents is not the same as people speaking them properly. Can you link the video please, I'd like to see what the quality is and where they are from. I agree that a lot of places don't have huge variation, certainly not so a non-native would notice, but there are quite a lot of stand outs. I'm also not sure what your point is in relation to the observation that Americans don't seem to have much of an ear for accents.

[DarkLink]

Huh, that was actually really easy to find: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=dABo_DCIdpM

[Wildeybeast]

A couple of those are ok, most are a)terrible b)inconsistent c)stereotypical parodies of people from that area which fail to comprehend there are a range of accents from said area d)all of the above. Any attempts to make judgements about British accents based on that video is deeply flawed.

[Mr Mystery]

I'd like to head a yank attempt a Brummie or Scouse accent! Lord knows they can't do a Scottish one to save their lives

[tawelwch]

I liked Russell Crowe's accent in Robin Hood! It wasn't bad like a Mary Poppins one, he just couldn't pick one and stick with it, so he tried them all! :)

[eldargal]

Actually it was a rather good representation of an English accent before the big vowel shift in whichever century it was. 14th maybe, I forget. Of course the problem was hardly anyone knew this.:rolleyes:

[tawelwch]

Actually it was a rather good representation of an English accent before the big vowel shift in whichever century it was. 14th maybe, I forget. Of course the problem was hardly anyone knew this.:rolleyes:

It's weird then that only Russell Crowe's character had that wandering accent, if it was meant to be for authenticity. :rolleyes:

[eldargal]

Well I heard it was either accidental or he was the only one to bother asking an academic what an Englishman in the 12th century would have sounded like.:rolleyes:

[Wildeybeast]

Well I heard it was either accidental or he was the only one to bother asking an academic what an Englishman in the 12th century would have sounded like.:rolleyes:

If this is true, it was entirely accidental. He got incredibly pissy when people asked him about. He knew it was terrible accent and was very touchy when anyone mentioned it, to the extent he stormed out of one interview (on Radio 4 I think) when asked a perfectly reasonable question about it. Out of curiosity, how do we know what accents sounded like 900 years ago? Given we only have written sources and British people today can pronounce the same word differently I don't see how that gives us much evidence to go on.

[Mr Mystery]

You'd still be speaking 'middle' English back then. Very different pronunciation.

Did you know, the southern manner of a drawn out vowel is thought to have begun as a French affectation?

[eldargal]

If this is true, it was entirely accidental. He got incredibly pissy when people asked him about. He knew it was terrible accent and was very touchy when anyone mentioned it, to the extent he stormed out of one interview (on Radio 4 I think) when asked a perfectly reasonable question about it. Out of curiosity, how do we know what accents sounded like 900 years ago? Given we only have written sources and British people today can pronounce the same word differently I don't see how that gives us much evidence to go on.
I actually attended a seminar on that very question, and I can't remember a blasted thing about it now. Something about the way it was written, rural survivals and dialects, comparison to other languages and all sorts of things I vaguely remember. The same chap was my source for the Russel Crowe accent thing, he cited it as one of the most, if not the most, accurate medieval English accent in cinema.

[Wildeybeast]

Someone should tell Russell that then because he clearly has some major insecurities about it. I find it hard to believe we sounded like that because his accent is just a terrible mixture of lots of different modern day UK accents.

[Wolfshade]

The trouble is with accents unless you are familiar with them it is quite difficult to tell them apart. Apparently Newcastle and Sunderland accents are readily distinguishable but they all sound Geordie to me. I think that is the same for most people. Possibly with the vast amount of american TV shows we get we can start to tell some of the more obvious ones apart like Brooklyn seems to be quite distinctive.

What does bug me is that quite often you hear people doing Brummie impressions while what they are doing is a Black Country impression which is entirely different with key defining aspects is saying things like "Yam" in lieu of "I am".

What I find very interesting is local phrases which are not standard english and are quite archaic in origin. Unfortunately, with the rising transportation it measn that such phrases are becoming less common place.

Then there is lovely local variations, like in the midlands roundabouts are almost universally refered to as islands. Sheffield you have the word "while" being used as between, e.g. "I am in work 9 while 5 (making cutlery ;))".

[Psychosplodge]

Not "Never do owt for nowt unless tha does it for thi sen." ? Local word use is more dialectical than accent though.

The reason apparently is most people in England and presumably the rest of the UK in previous generations, lived within five to ten miles of where they lived when they were born. Combined with regional transport links that make it more difficult to get to places on the other side of county borders than your own town and there you have it.

Just put a Barnsley accent next to any other Yorkshire accent...

[Drunkencorgimaster]

I agree that the British ear for accents is much subtler than the American one. Having said that, not all "foreigners" doing American accents get it right. Gabrielle Anwar on "Burn Notice" is particularly prone to slipping back into Brit. Once in a blue moon you can catch Kate Beckinsale muffle up a vowel here or there. I almost feel like I'm blaspheming on this next one, but in a few places in Last of the Mohicans Daniel Day Lewis sounds ever-so-slightly British (or Anglo-Irish or whatever). By Age of Innocence these traces were gone and his regular speaking voice is sounding kinda Yankish to me now.

Southern US accents in particular get butchered fairly badly by some British actors admittedly. Jude Law is a fine actor, but the accent he uses in Midnight the Garden of Good and Evil is really more Texan even though the film is set in Savannah, Georgia.

On that note there are quite a few regional accents in the US, but they are much more subtle than British regional varieties. Believe it or not there are some sharp differences between the way people speak in Boston, New York, and Philadelphia even though these cities lay a relatively short distance from each other. I live in Arkansas "Hill Country" but have some difficulty understanding people in "the Delta" of my same state even though it is only about a two-hour drive away.

To me a MUCH bigger problem as far a foreign actors go are the Canadians (William Shatner excepted). There is a definite difference between Canuck and American English. Given that a large chunk of our shows are filmed in Vancover and Toronto our airwaves are being bombarded with Canadian long vowels. I don't have a problem with the Canadian accent per se, in fact my home state of Minnesota has a very similar accent. But don't sound like a Canadian if your are trying to pretend to be a Chicago cop, or a New York cabbie, or a Texan rancher for pity's sake!

[Wolfshade]

Some accents impersinations are truely awful.
Brad Pitt in 7 years in Tibet, the worst attempted Austrian accent ever.
A close second I'd say is Keanu Reeves and Winona Rider in Bram Stokers Dracula, it perhaps wouldn't have been so bad if you hadn't had Anthony Hopkins and Gary Oldman
Though at least he tried, Sean Connery playing Rameriez in highlander makes no attempt to be Spanish with his scotch accent putting Christopher Lambert's to shame.

[Mr Mystery]

Americans attempting Scottish accents always get it wrong, to the point of it being really quite insulting.

Scotland has actors and actresses. Need a Scottish character? Just hire a Scot. Job jobbed.

[Wolfshade]

I do like the old adage that if you want a master villan that you get a bloke with an english accent, if you want to then rise it up a notch you get an english accent doing a german accent

[Psychosplodge]

Americans attempting Scottish accents always get it wrong, to the point of it being really quite insulting.

Scotland has actors and actresses. Need a Scottish character? Just hire a Scot. Job jobbed.

This with whichever appropriate accent...

[Bean]

To the OP:

I think there are two main things:

Yes, Romney really was that weak of a candidate. His routine and off-handed alienation of pretty much every minority (though, perhaps most importantly, hispanics) hurt him significantly--though he also did an unexceptional job of motivating his base.

Also, Obama's economic record is not nearly as bad as has been made out. The spending that people like to ***** about was pretty much entirely the result of bi-partisan decisions made immediately before he took office (though, of course, with his participation and agreement). More-over, that spending was basically good economic policy--it worked. If it didn't work as well as you might have wanted, that doesn't mean it was a failure--your desires were just unrealistic.

So, with what is, by any rational evaluation, a pretty respectable economic record and an opponent who routinely shot himself in the foot for little or no gain, it's really not much of a surprise that Obama got re-elected. Which, of course, is exactly what everyone who performed any serious statistical analysis of the matter predicted.

[Wildeybeast]

What I find very interesting is local phrases which are not standard english and are quite archaic in origin. Unfortunately, with the rising transportation it measn that such phrases are becoming less common place.

I'll always remembering ordering a sausage cob just after moving to uni and the woman staring at me like I'd told her that I'd just relieved myself on her shop floor. I hadn't even realised it was a regional word. There was a nice 30 seconds or so of awkward silence as she gormed at me until I realised what the issue was.



To me a MUCH bigger problem as far a foreign actors go are the Canadians (William Shatner excepted). There is a definite difference between Canuck and American English. Given that a large chunk of our shows are filmed in Vancover and Toronto our airwaves are being bombarded with Canadian long vowels. I don't have a problem with the Canadian accent per se, in fact my home state of Minnesota has a very similar accent. But don't sound like a Canadian if your are trying to pretend to be a Chicago cop, or a New York cabbie, or a Texan rancher for pity's sake!

See, I can never get the difference between Canadian and American (apart from those treacherous Frenchie Canadians obviously).

[Psychosplodge]

I'll always remembering ordering a sausage cob just after moving to uni and the woman staring at me like I'd told her that I'd just relieved myself on her shop floor. I hadn't even realised it was a regional word. There was a nice 30 seconds or so of awkward silence as she gormed at me until I realised what the issue was.

I have that trouble when I try ordering a a sausage and bacon butty in places...

[Wolfshade]

I had opne of those bread chuckles, when a friend came to visit and ordered a barn cake, then a bread cake and then I sorted him out :)

[Psychosplodge]

Is it bap in your neck of the woods?

[Wolfshade]

Mine? No, it is a northern thing. Though you probably would be understood. If I were to order a bacon buttie, I would probably use the word buttie.
I think cob is more common than bap locally thogh I must confess there is a bewildering array of names for bread products

[Psychosplodge]

Is it? I assumed it would be closer to you as the SO uses bap in the Stoke area.
I'd use breadcake generally. And butty for ordering a hot sandwich.

[Wolfshade]

I was thinking sort of Derbyshire that sort of area not Lancashire & Cumbria

[Psychosplodge]

Ah. That's south to me so doesn't register as Northern :D, which is probably what geordies say about the likes of me...

[Wolfshade]

double post

[Wolfshade]

Bread roll or just roll.
Breadcake a term often used in Yorkshire.
Bap. Baps as traditionally made in Scotland are not sweet, unlike the Irish version which may contain currants.
Barm or barm cake Term used in Liverpool/Lancashire
Batch, a Wirral and Coventry term, a soft floured bread roll.
Bin lid, common in Merseyside.
Bun (e.g., hamburger bun or hot dog bun).
Buttery, a flat savoury roll from Aberdeen.
Cob, a term used in parts of the East Midlands.
Dinner roll, a smaller roll, often crusty.
Dollar roll, a small silver-dollar-sized roll, often sliced and used for sandwiches.
Finger roll, a soft roll about three times longer than it is wide.
Flour cake is also used, along with barm, in Bolton.
Muffin commonly used in Rochdale, Oldham, Bury, Ashton-Under-Lyne, Salford and parts of West Yorkshire
Nudger, a long soft white or brown roll similar to a large finger roll common in Liverpool.
Oven bottom, a Lancashire term for a flat, floury, soft roll.
Stottie cake, a thick, flat, round loaf. Stotties are common in North East England.
Teacake, an oven bottom that has risen and slightly browned on top Yorkshire

[Psychosplodge]

A teacake has fruit in it.

[Wolfshade]

as does a scone, (prounced cone with a preceeding s) unless it is a cheese one ;)

The hardcore Astronomy crew, we used to go for tea cakes at 10 in between lectures on a thursday, tea and teacakes at the interval

Also interestingly you can now get hot cross bun loaf

[Psychosplodge]

as does a scone, (prounced cone with a preceeding s) unless it is a cheese one ;)

The hardcore Astronomy crew, we used to go for tea cakes at 10 in between lectures on a thursday, tea and teacakes at the interval

Also interestingly you can now get hot cross bun loaf
I'm glad you got scones right :D or I'd have had to mock you...
We used to go for a ten am breakfast butty and pint in loyds...
how can a bun be a loaf? O_o surely it's a hot cross loaf

[Wolfshade]

Well we did try to go to bar one but that didn't open 'till 11 so we had no choice..

[Psychosplodge]

Ah, you see weatherspoons understand the need for a pint at seven in the morning :rolleyes:

[Wolfshade]

Yeah, but I didn't want to move off campus...

[Psychosplodge]

It is a bit further from big school I suppose

[Wildeybeast]

as does a scone, (prounced cone with a preceeding s) unless it is a cheese one ;)

The hardcore Astronomy crew, we used to go for tea cakes at 10 in between lectures on a thursday, tea and teacakes at the interval

Also interestingly you can now get hot cross bun loaf

Poncy southerner.

http://oxforddictionaries.com/definition/english/scone?q=scone

[Psychosplodge]

Poncy southerner.

http://oxforddictionaries.com/definition/english/scone?q=scone

pfft

poncy southerner yourself :P

it clearly rhymes with cone, not con.

From experience I only know southerners that use the skon pronunciation, so that definition honestly surprises me.

[Wildeybeast]

Since my pronunciation isn't the American one, that automatically makes it the correct one.:D

[Psychosplodge]

I would normally give you that, but it's too irritating listening to people pronounce it wrong like that.

[Wolfshade]

We all learnt that adding an e to the end of the word makes a long vowel sound.
con cone
bon bone
don done
ton tone

Also, I am not sure that being from the greater birmingham area makes me southern; though I can see why you might question my pronunication :D

[Zaphod Beeblebrox]

"OOOH!" I thought "a thread about me!" - but I was disappointed in the end :D

[Wolfshade]

"OOOH!" I thought "a thread about me!" - but I was disappointed in the end :D
How can you be disappointed, it ended in a discussion about the pronuciation of scone!

[Psychosplodge]

Also food related,

Mitt Romney spent $800m on not becoming president of the USA. I spent 65p and got the same result, except I have a Mars Bar.

[Wolfshade]

If you'd have spent 4p more you could have had a pack of 6 of Titan bars. They are the aldi equivalent...

[Psychosplodge]

I know, I don't like them. I don't like marsbars either really, but I'm not sure it would have worked with Twirl?

[Wildeybeast]

We all learnt that adding an e to the end of the word makes a long vowel sound.
con cone
bon bone
don done
ton tone

Also, I am not sure that being from the greater birmingham area makes me southern; though I can see why you might question my pronunication :D

You mean like:

gon gone
ton tonne
som some

?????

[Wolfshade]

You mean like:

gon gone
ton tonne
som some

?????

Gon & Som are none native words if they are at all...

Now Ton and Tonne are interesting, as this is unusual, usually the ending in an e makes the long vowel sounds, but a vowel double consonant vowel makes the first vowel short so you have two competing rules.

Interestingly there was a push in the 70s to pronounce ton and tonne different so there is not a confusion between the metric and imperial

[Wildeybeast]

According to the dictionary neither are bon and don. Bon is a Buddhist festival whilst there are two rivers in the UK and one in Russia called Don. I assumed you were just making up words to prove a point so I did likewise. :p

Upon further investigation it would appear that ton is derived from the middle English tun whilst tonne is a dirty French import so we can ignore that example.

I'm curious as to where you were taught this elongated vowel sound rule as it was never part of my education.

[Wolfshade]

I agree with bon.
I am surprised with don though, I was expecting given that there is the river don that it would have some meaning.
I shall try and find where it came from, either that or I was tripping and imagined the whole thing

[Wildeybeast]

We could also add come and done (which you incorrectly put on your list) and one to the list of none-(that's one as well!)elongated vowel words ending in e. There are so many common exceptions that they disprove the rule (if indeed it is one).

[Wolfshade]

http://youtu.be/l-Gq17O-HRc

Huzzah! Magic magic E

[Wildeybeast]

So according to that it is words ending with in which get the elongated e sound at the end. So not relevant to the scone/scone debate then. Glad we cleared that one up!

[Psychosplodge]

I agree with bon.
I am surprised with don though, I was expecting given that there is the river don that it would have some meaning.
I shall try and find where it came from, either that or I was tripping and imagined the whole thing

The river's a modern take on a Roman word though via ye olde English.


http://youtu.be/l-Gq17O-HRc

Huzzah! Magic magic E

I remember that, didn't they have that in your neck of the woods Wildey?
Also some is pronounced closer to sum, so doesn't really come into the s-cone argument very well...

[Wolfshade]

We could also add come and done (which you incorrectly put on your list) and one to the list of none-(that's one as well!)elongated vowel words ending in e. There are so many common exceptions that they disprove the rule (if indeed it is one).

I think that this is one of the problems with the English language as a whole that there are "rules" and nearly all of them have exceptions.
Like i before e except after c, then we have a weird example of science...

Then you have things like heteronyms, words that are spelt the same but sound different like "I like to read Wolfie's posts, I have read them all"

[Psychosplodge]

Maybe they'll make an easier version for foreigners...oh wait a minute...

[Wildeybeast]

I think that this is one of the problems with the English language as a whole that there are "rules" and nearly all of them have exceptions.
Like i before e except after c, then we have a weird example of science...

Then you have things like heteronyms, words that are spelt the same but sound different like "I like to read Wolfie's posts, I have read them all"

Which is why we don't teach the i before e rule any more. It had that many exceptions to remember it just became unnecessarily confusing.


Maybe they'll make an easier version for foreigners...oh wait a minute...

He he he.
http://www.retromodo.co.uk/img/p/5544-1630-large.jpg

[Wolfshade]

To be honest I am not terribly caught up with the scone pronunciation, unless we are talking about the scottish stone in which case there is only one correct way.
There are other more irritating things like people who pronounce mischievous as mischeevyous, schedule as skedule and people using due to as a preposition

[Wildeybeast]

Seconded. The scone/scone debate is just a bit of regional banter really, both are acceptable, just depends where you are from. Mispronunciation of words which a have set pronunciation really is unacceptable. So many kids seem to use 'of' instead of 'have' (could of, would of etc.) both in written and verbal form, that one really annoys me

[Wolfshade]

Oh I hear you with that one.

That reminds me father and I were talking about something and he mentioned "layers" only he pronounces it as lairs, and that caught me off guard. There are certain words he pronounces with a board west-country accent with the surrounding words without such a twang