Can someone explain to me in simple terms. USA elections

Oh, Extrospektiv you're still here, good!

Please could you explain to me why on earth you have a problem with professionals?

"This is everything I'd expect from Mumsnet though, A.K.A. metropolitan elite liberal feminist professional pro-abortion pro-gay marriage pro-mandatory sex ed pro-redistributive taxation pro-state funded healthcare anti-gun anti-austerity set."

I can understand you are opposed politically to the rest, but professionals?

You mean like doctors and teachers, right? i.e. anyone with employment based on professional qualifications.

Haven't read all of this yet, but just got to the bit where the term "professional" is used as an insult by a republican.

I don't know whether the correct response is to laugh, cry or be very scared indeed. All three probably.

This is fantastic, thank you all for posting. Keep them coming

What Nicholas said!

Of course Republicans aren't racist. Apart from those thrown out of the convention for throwing peanuts at a black camerawoman. And for saying "this is how we feed animals around here".

Great thread, really informative. Thanks for all your posts.

You're funny, Extrospektiv.

Gang violence doesn't matter to the pro gun lobby because it is blacks and hispanics who get killed in huge numbers -- and they don't matter to the NRA and the Gun Owners of America because they are not white.

Nooka -- excellent posts.

Would like to add that there is a strong sense of persecution on the part of some sections of the Right, a sense that there is an Establishment that the country needs saving from.

And some people with some mighty strange ideas about what the lives of women in their 20s and up in Britain are like.

Could you please stop spewing anti-conservatism hate and overloaded rhetoric? You're not Rachel Maddow are you? I am not speaking like Rush or Hannity- largely because I don't have their extremist, blinkered cast of mind and OTT approach to life. Please respond in the same respectful way.

www.nctc.gov/site/groups/taliban.html

National Counter-Terrorism Center. Well understood to be terrorist even if not on the official state department list.

Gun ownership doesn't aid and abet suicide. That reminds me of the argument I once heard that all road-use cars should be restricted by a mechanism to 70mph and unless and until this happens, car manufacturers are aiding and abetting speeding and causing death by dangerous driving. It also trivialises suicide.

Massacres are a whole different thing to gun violence in gangs which is what I keep hearing about when I read pro-gun-control material. Every so often like after Aurora a massacre will be spoken of. The rest of the time it's always about gangs and shootings in inner-city areas. The mighty and influential Children's Defense Fund, who are officially bipartisan but in practice Democrat because they support big-government solutions to child poverty (which I would consider case by case), love the idea of gun control and were a byproduct of the civil rights movement and so filled with people of color who opposed Republicans outright due to the Southern Strategy, produces its "protect children not guns" report every year hectoring lawmakers about gang violence. This is what I said should be remedied by tackling the deeper roots and not just trying to restrict the weapons.

Incidentally since the level of gun ownership is directly proportional to suicide rates aroudn the world and twice as many people die needlessly die to suicide by gunshot than do homicide by gunshot per year in the USA surely the church who view suicide as a mortal sin should be out and out against aiding and abbetting by gun ownership. Glad to see your compassion for all those who died and are shot by drive bys or in a cinema, campus on the wrong day etc was because they are evil.

Taliban in Afghanistan are not considered a terrorist organisation by the US State Department, of course you knew that right?

I know about rape figures. I'm a pro-life feminist, ffs I have studied plenty about rape and the misogynist culture that encourages it. I have demolished pro-rape comments IRL and online about 20 times in the past couple of weeks while the Akin/Galloway etc controversy was being spoken about a lot. But those stranger rapes still add up to a lot, more than the 16,000 a year even. And after any rape a woman can feel so terrified she won't go out. Here in the UK women who would feel secure enough to lead a normal life if they could carry a concealed gun end up on the scrapheap due to rape trauma. That's what this country condemns them to with an absolute handgun ban and five-year prison terms for breaking it. I'm not just talking about strangers here. There are women in their 20s and up, living alone terrified of their fathers or uncles coming back to hurt them the way they did in their childhood. Terrified their ex will get "revenge" for being dumped and decide he doesn't need consent because hey, they've done it before, so that's okay. These women should be able to defend themselves. Frequently advocates are asked questions about self-defence, they are forced to explain about "reasonable force" which is a dodgy standard and that the victim can't carry even a can of pepper spray. This law is hardly going to reassure them.

If you want a low sentence over here, better to sodomise a string of 10 year old girls than actually sell a few guns to people or convert blank firing ones to live ammunition. That should outrage anyone who cares about girls and women.

Armed people do not save the day which is why 9 innocent passers by were shot by the NY police tee other day. Tests have freqentely shown that the concealed carry person who draws at a shootout invariable either gets shot first or by the arriving law enforcement as a suspect.

There is no audible heartbeat until around 9 weeks and then only if you use doppler which is why the forced vaginal probe to image inside a blob of cells that is a pinprick size but blown up to full A4 to play on an emotionally vunerable victims mind.

Novack, that's way over the line but I won't report because I want people to see how bigoted you are over people with faith. I made it clear in 2 posts I am not with the fundie/hard-evangelical/extremist/conspiracy theory views of a handful of Republicans. I even called them idiots and maniacally conservative. And said I support Obamacare and civil gay marriages. I am only just Republican between the two parties, there are things I prefer the Democratic view on.

I don't believe in a medieval theocracy. That line is just a stupid one. You complained about negative campaigns, well we aren't running for election here, why make extremist negative lines about me just because I'm conservative on certain things? that is hypocritical. Oh and why did you not use the words BEATING HEART or HEARTBEAT, bringing up "rapist's child" (it's the WOMAN'S child), calling a state of the US bound by the Constitution a Mormon theocracy- OBVIOUS bullshit, mocking right-to-life which sets up the false dichotomy that we can care about born AND unborn humans and every single pro lifer I know does so.

Tell me to move to Afghanistan? That is so outrageous I don't know where to begin. Rupert Murdoch? I support the family values, not the owner and his misogynist page 3. I do NOT support FOX NEWS, notice how I said it was too extreme, as with MSNBC (too liberal). So there was no grounds for you to bring him up. Cheap Old Testament shots? Check. Putting me in with murdering woman hating terrorist backward scum? Check.

Gun deaths are not "needless", gang violence comes from people either choosing to lead an evil lifestyle or being drawn into it by desperate circumstances. Armed people save the day frequently, the more gun-friendly environments there are the better for that. Ideally I'd prefer no guns but once they are widely dissipated as in the US the government shouldn't come for them. There are other ways of solving the violence problem without gun control.

As for Roe v Wade you are aware of course that the number of abortions carried out annually pre Roe v Wade are almost identical to the number post.

Oh and most rapists are actually a well known person to the victim not a random stranger which explains that you never hear of a woman shooting her rapist because he probably knew if she had it and where it was and had it pointed at her as he raped her.

great discussion. Thanks to all

Extrospektiv it was not before the 1970'sit was 1978 that he was still in that racist organisation in 1978 when he was a thirty year old man. Oh and they have never apoligised for it either and still maintain it in their doctrines of the faith. You do know they don't follow the bible don't you?

No war on SAHM mothers at all but a woman who has servants and 250 million dollars in her husbands bank account knows nothing of an immigrants daily struggle with no health insurance, no rent money and being forced to give birth to children because the schools are not allowed to actually teach contraception. Abstinence didn't work for Sarah Palin did it as she had one of those 3 months miracle pregnancies after the wedding and she didn't manage to instill these values onto any of her own children either did she.

What do you think about the fact that 11 states have mandated that health insurance cannot be used for abortion fees thus forcing the poor to be unable to plan a famly. What do you call the law in Utah, a mormon theocracy, that effectively means that no medical professional will provide an abortion. That is forced birthing. No choice for the poor there, is there. What about in Texas where you must be forced to listen to any foetal blood flow and if necessary through a probe inserted into your vagina. So not enough a woman gets raped and made pregnant she then has to be probed vaginally, made to listen to a swuish swuish of blood flow and then left for 24 to 72 hours to decide if she would not rather have the rapists child after all. Of course the bible does teach that a woman must marry her rapist. Like the taliban teach too

How do your own so called american family values side with Fox news which is owned by the same man who put 16 year old girls topless in his newspapers on page 3 day in day out for years. Don't you understand he is just paying you for profit as the middle of the media spectrum was crowded so the growth had to come from being hard right.

Where do you right to life values disappear to when 16,000 people a year die a t gunpoint and yet the reason that an armed person could save the day rarely happens. Like once in a blue moon compared to 16,000 deaths needlessly.

Where are your family values when George Bush was ordering the embargoes on Iraqi that lead to up to 1 million children starving to death.

really going by your post you want to live in a middle ages theocracy so hey since you seem to like no rights for woman anti abortion and limited education for children why don't all the folks like you move to, Afghanistan and show the Taliban how to really do oppression. You share the same god after all, unlike Romney who believes in an angel called moroni who was invented around 150 years ago by a man with his head literally in a sack.

Oh and about free condoms. Romney handed out about 100,000 for free at the Salt Lake Olypmics so i guess he flip flopped on that too.

Economically I am Centre, not far-right, I can understand some level of redistribution and do not support dismantling socialised medicine in the UK; I even support Obamacare more than oppose it but would prefer it with Blunt Amendment and/or STUPAK (much better) Amendment for pro-life reasons.

You got it on MSNBC & Fox. Super-PACS = super-high funding for super crap.
Electioneering is a nightmare over there, the lies and baiting and idiotic extreme comments and personal attacks, they should grow up! Both sides! Between MSNBC and Fox is the liberal-leaning media, CNN/CBS/NBC. They tend to lean slightly Democrat. The LA Times and NYT are both mainly strong Democrat.

re: Welfare State- the economic centre has been vacated in Britain for decades, firstly by Tories effectively forced to accept the Post-War Consensus of left wing policies after WWII damage then by Labour pushed into removing clause IV by the Washington Consensus and Thatcher-Reagan blocking any realistic path to socialism.

Social views? Simple. Straightforward interpretation of Scripture plus centuries of tradition. They don't want to change. They don't want their children taught that a whole rainbow of sexualities/gender expressions are OK(I'm more pro-gay than average Republicans) and they quite rightly don't want schools offering free condoms, secret referrals for abortion or having teachers who keep secrets about sex for their minor children. They believe the sexual "revolution" of the sixties was wrong, as do I on most points, and we have a right to live by the old standards. Abortion? Not killing the unborn is far from extreme. Most GOP politicians in high places are exceptioneers anyway. Guns? Better to be able to protect yourself than call the cops when the attacker/ home invader/ rapist/ robber is already right there. Plus a vibrant hunting culture.

Not all Americans who believe in God are even like that. I know one here who would fit very well into "professional/metropolitan elite liberal" and is pro-choice to 22 weeks for any reason, pro-Roe v. Wade, anti-exclusivist (i.e. she doesn't believe other religions are entirely wrong), in favour of tax rises for the rich and affirmative action and will be voting Obama '12. She was a devout Episcopalian for the many years she spent there and still turns up regularly at church when she can, severe back pain permitting. I find it difficult to understand why a Christian would think that way, but the scriptures are subject to a lot of different interpretations once you leave the true fundamentalist ones who think that evolution is of the devil and masturbation will send you to eternal hell-fire. I can respect her more than I used to when I was seriously right wing.

I've always found the Republican position difficult to understand, even when I was a lot more right wing than I am now. However we stayed with a family in North Dakota for a while and got a much better understanding as to why they had developed their views (the economic ones anyway, the social ones I still can't fathom).

So their family had settled in North Dakota on promises from the government about good land and support. Which were it turned out blatantly untrue. They and their neighbours only survived because they worked very hard and helped each other (and many didn't make it). It left them with a huge (and very natural) suspicion of government.

Another thing is that in the States there seems to be electioneering all the time, which means that there is little honesty and a lot of negative campaigns throwing the dirt around. The news is ridiculously polarised (we used to like switching between MSNBC and Fox, neither of which really reported the news, more opinion, often ridiculous in it's extreme position). At work people are expected to give their all but can be sacked on the spot for no reason. I think this makes people mistrustful and insular, very focused on looking after their immediate families.

Plus the American Dream is all about making it on your own despite the odds, so that feeds into the same dynamic. The main difference from Europe, or at least from the UK is that there hasn't really been any event that has truly brought people together in the way that World War II did (I don't think we'd have half of the Welfare State if it hadn't been for the common experiences during the war)

Sorry, forgot to include "family values" in point three, but I suspect it would be asumed considering how the popularity of Romney went up after he confessed waking up to a bed full of his children.

I used to summarise the process in very simple terms:

1. Only rich people get to run
2. It is about making the other candidate look bad, not about convincing with proper political plans and arguments.
3. The one that come out with the most convincing claim of devotion to religion, faith, or even a family dog, wins.

I am a bit cynical though and certainly very fed up with the whole process...

@Novack a lot of people were racist growing up back then because that's what they were taught, dems and GOP alike. I assume they don't believe it now those attitudes are not ruling society in large chunks of America and racism has became more of a private prejudice held by bigots. Before the 1970s it was a way of life and thinking, of course it was dead wrong, the Northerners saw racism was wrong way before that, but I can't blame him for who his parents were and where he grew up. Not his fault.

"Force birth"? You serious? "abandon to the streets"? This sort of hyperbole is beyond even half of MSNBC, Maddow, O'Donnell, Olbermann, the super-liberal establishment. (TBF though a super liberal echo chamber might not be so bad when the radically and maniacally conservative one exists with Rush, O'Reilly, Ann Coulter et al.- they balance each other out. Just neither of them are generally worth listening to for serious news coverage.)

What's the privilege-bashing? War on SAHM women? Barack Obama was hardly poor. Are you saying that Barbara Ehrenreich should be president, because she actually chose to live around the poor for an extended period (and made money writing about it.) Of course this may have deepened her existing comprehension but the whole point of having empathy is you can at least reasonably understand how others feel without having to walk in their shoes so literally. I hear Ehrenreich, Michael Moore, the Rage against the Machine members, Bill Maher, Bruce Springsteen and similar rich powerful individuals spouting their sympathy for the downtrodden of all sorts. I wouldn't mind- some of these people do a lot of good even though I don't agree with their hard-left wing politics- yet what gets me pissed is when they assume they are the ONLY ones who care about the poor and Republicans would want to let them all starve to death or shove them in workhouses/bring back slavery for them.

I think that Extrospektiv has pretty much summed up the difference between British political sensitivities and the American Republican viewpoint.

In the States the right does seriously think that 'liberal' is a term of abuse, not a fairly normal position to live your life by.

Elite is oddly also a term of abuse, which is fundamentally stratnge, since anyone who aspires to be President has to be successful and have access to pot loads of money. But still candidates have to do their best to present themselves as folksy/ man next door types. Metropolitan and professional are also things to be suspicious of

Redistributing taxes is obviously socialist and therefore pretty evil (like most of Europe - Romney got grief for being able to speak French for goodness sake!)

Thinking that women should not be politically represented by a few wives saying what great husbands they have, that gay people should not be discriminated against, that sex education should be a bit more than 'just say no', and that choice about being pregnant is a personal affair are also to this group very extreme positions.

That many Americans live in fear of going bankrupt because of unexpected healthcare costs (even when insured) or that many simply cannot access essential healthcare (A&E often see people in crisis with conditions that could have been treated simply and easily)

Obviously anyone should be able to carry semiautomatic machine guns and buy as many rounds of ammunition as they feel like

I think the only position that is fairly similar are the views on austerity, given the cuts the coalition has made.

Mitt Romney in a speech at a mine of a republican supporter a few days ago says to the assembled workers. " You've got a great boss" Incidentally the great boss docked everyones pay for the time not working spent at the speech.