This site makes extensive use of JavaScript.
Please enable JavaScript in your browser.
Classic Theme
Thottbot Theme
So whos voting for obama again?
Post Reply
Return to board index
Post by
138638
This post was from a user who has deleted their account.
Post by
184848
This post was from a user who has deleted their account.
Post by
MonkeyDLuffy
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Ca0n_4oK70Q&feature=player_embedded
just today
Post by
wolfeyoung
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Ca0n_4oK70Q&feature=player_embedded
just today
I completely agree with Obama here. It is sad that our president has to give the reporters a history lesson before they'll shut up.
As far as the founders being more afraid of the people when it came to voting for the president and why we have the electoral college. I'm not going to give my answer right now. I have to go to work but, I'll research my side and give sources for my argument. I really shouldn't have just said "this" and "that" without sources. I knew someone with misinformation would just "no, you're wrong."
But remember, there were many other options to voting for the president at the time. One of those options included not having ANY American person voting for the president. If the founders thought the people too stupid to vote, then they could have chosen some other system, but they didn't. Also, America wasn't like it is today and when people had to vote for the president, they had to travel to, I think, Pennsylvania to vote. The US just didn't have the system to go out to all those small communities of like 20-30 people, which were scattered all across the frontier, to actually get their vote. That is why we have an electoral college. It was easier then for each group to vote for someone to go across the country and cast a collective vote, than to either have these very poor farmers to do the week long journey to vote, or to amass a large group of other people to go and find these people and collect their vote, which would have required a big federal budget that the US didn't have at the time.
Anyway, I'll have my sources later today.
PS. Ivokk, the question is not anecdotal, it's about US demographics. In a general sense, the US comprises of 1/3 liberal, 1/3 moderate and 1/3 conservative. That's not precise, but for my argument, it'll do. Okay, so when a Senator runs for office, there are only two for each state and the entire state votes for the two Senators. Well, a liberal/conservative Senator can get their base, which is 1/3, but to win, they have to draw a larger percentage of moderates than their opponent. What this means is that in order for a Senator to win in their state, they need to move a bit to the middle on certain issues. This requires liberal's to move right and conservatives to move left.
However, in the House, the only people that vote for them are the ones in their districts. Therefore, you can have a very liberal district, like the one in San Fransisco which is where Nancy Pelosi is from, or you can have a very conservative one. This is why in the House you'll find more hard core liberals/conservatives then you would in the Senate.
Also, in the House, the majority vote wins, therefore, if one side has the votes, then there is no point in comprising. The House majority only needs to compromise enough to get the majority vote and no further. Again, this creates people that are more extreme.
In the Senate, due to the filibuster, even with the majority vote, a bill can be killed. So, in the Senate it takes basically 61 votes to ensure anything passes, even though 51 votes is all that is needed to technically pass a bill. Because of the filibuster option, and the needed to ensure 61 votes, it causes both parties to move to the center.
Post by
HiVolt
If you don't vote then you shouldn't complain about what the president has or hasn't done, because you chose not to play the role you could have played in it.
Ivokk, you and I usually see eye to eye, but this is one thing I've got to disagree on. Just because a person did not vote, does not mean that any policy or legislation passed would not affect them. Anyone who has a problem with policy or legislation that affects them has the right to complain about it.
An actor can refuse a part in a play, and still be upset if that part was played badly by another.
Post by
374287
This post was from a user who has deleted their account.
Post by
DarkOpeth
I'm hoping Dennis Kucinich runs and wins. I saw the CNN debate he was a part of last year and he was by far the most intelligent, articulate and had the best voting record.
Looking at it realistically, and because I am a hardened political cynic, Kucinich would not win the election if he ran in 2012. I would like him to as well, but thats just the way it is.
Post by
374287
This post was from a user who has deleted their account.
Post by
Heckler
Some factual complaints... then some opinion:
Republicans might have complained but there was nothing they could have done to stop anything the Democrats wanted to do. The Republicans did not have the votes to stop any bill the Democrats passed.
As you state below, a filibuster cannot be broken by a simple majority, and is fully capable of stopping a bill. The Republicans have -- and have exercised -- a great amount of power in the Senate in terms of stopping bills.
. . . the Senate, which had 60 Democrats . . .
This isn't precisely true. Following the 2008 elections, the Democrats had 56 votes (plus 2 Independents who caucus with the Democrats). Roster - D: 56, I: 2, R: 41. Then these things happened:
Arlen Specter switched parties to Democrat on April 29, 2009 (D: 57, I: 2, R: 40)
Al Franken (D) (delayed in being seated by recount trial) was sworn in July 9 2009. (D: 58, I: 2, R: 40)
Ted Kennedy (D) died Aug 25, 2009, his seat was vacant for about a month. A temporary Dem filled his seat until he was replaced by Scott Brown (R) on Feb 4 2010. (D: 57, I: 2, R: 41)
Robert Byrd (D) died June 28, 2010, there was a small lapse in his seat (56/2/41) until a temporary Dem was seated in his place, eventually replaced by Joe Manchin (D) (57/2/41).
So there were 60 non-Republican votes from July 9 2009 to Feb 4 2010 (with a 1-month lapse around Ted Kennedy's death) (which doesn't necessarily mean 60 Democratic votes). It's important to realize that Joe Leiberman (I-Conn) and Ben Nelson (D-Neb) (among others depending on the issue), often vote with Republicans.
When you said this, you were speaking
specifically
about the Health Care bill (which was signed in March 2010), the Democrats only had 59 votes at the time, and Ben Nelson was very much on the Republican's side of this vote, so more like 58. Not 60. (--although it did pass the Senate in one form in Dec. 2009, with 60 votes, all from the Democratic caucus -- though its worth noting that even in this case, Sen. Ben Nelson had to be "bought off" with the "Cornhusker Kickback" before he agreed to support the bill. Between Dec 2009 and March 2010, Scott Brown was elected, and so the House was afraid to send the bill back to the Senate, and so when they did, they made sure it could be simply approved using the 'reconciliation' process, which is not subject to filibuster. This vote passed 56-43, with 3 Senators from the Dem caucus voting
against
it (Lincoln, Pryor, Nelson). If what you're implying were true, this whole charade wouldn't have been necessary, and they could have simply voted on it properly.)
In the Senate, due to the filibuster, even with the majority vote, a bill can be killed. So, in the Senate it takes basically 61 votes to ensure anything passes, even though 51 votes is all that is needed to technically pass a bill. Because of the filibuster option, and the needed to ensure 61 votes, it causes both parties to move to the center.
Here, you're basically contradicting your first quote above. However, you're still wrong. It takes 60 votes for cloture (to break a filibuster), not 61 (3/5, rounded up). I can agree with you slightly that the filibuster is important, as it allows the minority party to have a check on the majority party. However, it made more sense when "To Filibuster..." meant to take the Senate floor and talk for hours and hours, literally causing activity in the Senate to grind to an absolute halt (like the infamous phone book readings during the Civil Rights movement).
These days, "To Filibuster..." means to say "I filibuster" and then sit down and move to other business.
In my opinion
, it's a rather extreme act in a democracy for 41% of a body to tell 59% of a body that they're not even allowed to vote on an issue. Again, it's not unreasonable to give the minority this ability, it's just a slightly extreme thing to do -- and as such, the requirements of a Senator who wishes to filibuster should also be slightly extreme (like requiring them to stand on the Senate floor for hours on end, in front of the unblinking eye of C-SPAN, in full view of the American public).
Some of the most remembered actions of Robert Byrd and Strom Thurmond were their 14+ and 24+ (respectively) hour filibusters, in which they actually
spoke
for the entire time. These days, you can filibuster a bill endlessly with almost no actual effort or public exposure -- which seems absolutely silly, and defeats the entire purpose of the filibuster. (Don't think I'm blaming Republicans here, the Democrats started this game, the Republicans just took it to the next level -- and you better believe the Democrats will continue
the trend
when they're the minority again, which is why they're afraid to reform it now).
On topic: I'd prefer someone more progressive than Pres. Obama -- if I had a choice to his left I might vote that way. Since I won't, there's absolutely no chance I would vote for any of the current Republican hopefuls over Pres. Obama. The President may not be the progressive messiah I want, but he's still orders of magnitude better than any Republicans that are currently in the running.
Post by
DarkOpeth
On topic: I'd prefer someone more progressive than Pres. Obama -- if I had a choice to his left I might vote that way. Since I won't, there's absolutely no chance I would vote for any of the current Republican hopefuls over Pres. Obama. The President may not be the progressive messiah I want, but he's still orders of magnitude better than any Republicans that are currently in the running.
This, this and this. I like Obama, however he is just a man, and more importantly, another POLITICIAN.
Because of personal reasons, I believe this whole coproate-plutarchy, top-5%-has-90%-of-the-wealth "order" or "system" (whatever you wanna call it) is starting to crumble. And nothing any government or corporation can do to stop it. The banks and the elite can only suck so much blood out of the peasants before they all turn on them, so to speak.
So come election time, you make choice, pick the guy who will let whole society as we know crumble, or pick the guy that will let whole society as we know crumble, but more
slowly
. I pick the latter, because I like my level of comfort atm.
Post by
Elladin
you should always vote, get involved for changing ur country
This sounds familiar. Funny, it sounds just as naive the second time.
It's naive NOT to vote my friend. No matter how small the say is or how skewed the vote may get in the end.
I refuse to vote,
even after I reach the legal voting age
I HATE politics, but that's no reason to live in a country, have all the benefits of living in a country, and not try to be a part of it when given the opportunity. You may not change the country with your vote, but in the end if you don't vote you can't have a legitimate say in anything that goes on because you won't be apart of the solution to whatever problem you don't like.
Post by
Monday
All been said before.
Post by
Balstradan
Nearly everyone on the planet absolutely loves Obama. EXCEPT the people in the U.S. of A. We all think he's great, revolutionary and doing whats best to clean up the mess that herpa derpa bush made.
Then theres people living in the bible belt who actually think he's muslim/islamic/anti-christ/satanist/nazi.
Post by
DarkOpeth
Nearly everyone on the planet absolutely loves Obama. EXCEPT the people in the U.S. of A. We all think he's great, revolutionary and doing whats best to clean up the mess that herpa derpa bush made.
Then theres people living in the bible belt who actually think he's muslim/islamic/anti-christ/satanist/nazi.
Look. (just for full disclosure, I am a liberal). Regardless of what you say about him, I respect President Obama, and at the very least, he is orders of magnitude better than his predecessor.
I can sleep at night knowing that he is the head of the gov't and as such won't %^&* the entire country up by the time I awaken, because he is at least a rational and fairly educated man. Anyone that's has been paying attention to US politics knows that Obama has barely done 1/4th of what he intends, simply because his hands are tied behind his back by the Senate. Simple as that. There are certainly things he can have done differently but look at it this way:
2.5 years into their presidencies: Wars started:
Bush: 2 Obama: 0
If this fails to convince you, look at it this way out of the two viable candidates next election cycle, vote for Obama, because honestly, have you SEEN the people on the other side? Ideologically, and common-sense wise, they are 50 years behind.
Post by
327953
This post was from a user who has deleted their account.
Post by
Adamsm
Good job on linking information that was old when Bush did the invasion originally.
Post by
138638
This post was from a user who has deleted their account.
Post by
Monday
he is orders of magnitude better than his predecessor.
And many more orders of magnitude worse than most others.
If you can't tell, I don't like Obama.
Post by
Heckler
If you can't tell, I don't like Obama.
Please explain why, in detail.
Post by
minad
Can i ask you a question?
What country are you talking? Im not family with presidents for different countrys than my country.
But im interested to president choices. Like in my country. I will partisipait.
Post Reply
You are not logged in. Please
log in
to post a reply or
register
if you don't already have an account.