Election Day in America, 2010

[Tenchu]

What about you, MMM, still an Obama fan? I fail to see how he's any different to Bush, aside he's black and pro gay marriage or whatever, minor things.

[RobinMask]

Originally Posted by ColinHowell

Not a stupid question at all. For one thing, you come from a rather different political system.

The job of both bodies is to draft laws, and each body also acts as a check on the other body's power. The key feature of the House of Representatives is that its representation is proportional to population. The entire country is divided into districts (Congressional Districts) based on equal populations, and each district elects a Representative. (Each state always gets at least one Representative, no matter how small its population.) Representatives come up for re-election every two years.

The Senate, on the other hand, is evenly distributed by state. Each state gets exactly two Senators. Senators come up for re-election every six years, but the elections are staggered so that only one third of Senators are up for re-election every two years.

Because the Senate is evenly distributed by state, it can prevent bills from the House from trampling the interests of the low-population states who have low representation in the Senate. Likewise, the House can keep the Senate from enacting legislation that goes too far against the interests of the majority population.

Both House and Senate must act together for bills to become law. Either the House or the Senate can draft a bill, which may be approved, rejected, or amended by the other body, but the final bill must be agreed to by both bodies before it can pass to the President for his approval. If the President vetoes the bill, it can still become law if both House and Senate override the veto with a two-thirds majority vote in each.

The Senate has some special privileges reserved for itself, as does the House. The Senate's agreement is required for treaties being signed with other nations, and it must confirm candidates for the President's Cabinet, other important officials of the Executive branch, important military officers, and Federal judges. Revenue bills (those responsible for imposing taxes) must be initiated in the House, and in practice the House also initiates appropriations bills (those which determine how the Federal budget will be spent).

If a Federal official (including the President) is to be tried for crimes while in office, that official must first be "impeached" (charged with a crime) by the House, and then the official must be tried by the Senate, which determines whether or not the official is found guilty.

I hope that makes things a bit clearer. The English Wikipedia articles go into great detail on both bodies.

Thanks for exaplaining I can see why this election is so important then, it seems like it has a huge impact on the way the country is run. I'll be sure to keep an eye out for the results, and to check on Wikipedia like you suggested for details on the government and difference between house and senate.

[TalnSG]

Originally Posted by Tenchu

What about you, MMM, still an Obama fan? I fail to see how he's any different to Bush, aside he's black and pro gay marriage or whatever, minor things.

Can't speak for MM, but I will never regret my vote for Obama, no matter how ineffective and unproductive his term is because NOTHING would ever make me regret voting AGAINST the hard core, racist bigot who the Republican party was represented by in that election.

I have worked on a state level with both major parties and from that perspective there is no difference. The say what they think most people want to hear, then do what they think will ensure their paycheck and provide fame. There are rare exceptions and I don't care what their party affilliations are, they have my vote. That is another reason why I will forever support the removal of the strait party ticket from all ballots. You ought to at least have to physically choose each person you gets your vote.

I will not elaborate on the contempt I have for those who don't bother to vote at all.

[TalnSG]

Originally Posted by Jaydelart

Guess how many of my peers took the initiative to vote this week, for the sole interest in legalizing Marijuana in CA? Lots. Guess how many know what they're talking about in politics 75% of the time? Close to none -- unless it involves weed, Obama, or the "The Right to Freedom of Speech." ~ respectfully informed subjectively, of course.

I'm not the most educated on politics, but it does seem ridiculous when people can't even name the Vice President.

Republican or Democrat... it's pointless if you're ignorant.

Agreed!

The only difference between CA and TX from that perspective is that "Right to bear arms" may be more important to many here than the Marijuana issue, since it wasn't up for a vote here. What gets me is that the CA law on controlled substances is overriden by federal law, regardless of any vote, so unless that was a vote for a constitutional amendment it was pointless.

[MMM]

Originally Posted by Tenchu

What about you, MMM, still an Obama fan? I fail to see how he's any different to Bush, aside he's black and pro gay marriage or whatever, minor things.

Long time no see, Tenchu. How are you and the family?

Why would I regret my vote for Obama?

Originally Posted by RobinMask

Thanks for exaplaining I can see why this election is so important then, it seems like it has a huge impact on the way the country is run. I'll be sure to keep an eye out for the results, and to check on Wikipedia like you suggested for details on the government and difference between house and senate.

The huge impact is in the form of giant brakes being put on. This means less will be accomplished in the next two years. The leadership of the Republican Party has said quite frankly and openly that their main agenda item is ensuring Pres. Obama is not re-elected.

Over 100 Republicans in Congress have been at press conferences taking credit for bringing money to their districts in the form of the Obama Stimulus Package which they voted against.

[Tenchu]

Originally Posted by TalnSG

Can't speak for MM, but I will never regret my vote for Obama, no matter how ineffective and unproductive his term is because NOTHING would ever make me regret voting AGAINST the hard core, racist bigot who the Republican party was represented by in that election.

You have the option not to vote at all. You come off as "my enemies enemy is my friend" - well, I've often said that line as well (specifially in supporting radical Iran just because I dislike Israel more). Nonetheless, you did vote for just another fascist war monger.

[Tenchu]

Originally Posted by MMM

Long time no see, Tenchu. How are you and the family?

Why would I regret my vote for Obama?

My bubbles is healthy and beautiful, my wife is evil and conniving. Same old stuff. Thanks.

About Obama, I think, in regards to US involvement in the middle east and elsewhere, he's no different than Bush. I think the US foreign policy is about irradicating all opposition to it's global domination, and this transcends party politics. I think you've just got a fascist government that's impossible to change, really.

I think some people were under the impression the US would be less hostile, authoritarian and violent under Obama. They were let down. It's just gone to show, as far as the outside world is concerned, you only have America - Democrat or Republican, those things only matter to Americans who can push for their own national policies. But, for the rest of the world, change in government makes for no differences. It's just America.

I actually think Hilary Clinton is a terrible foreign minister... I can't stand her. hate her. She's worse than Rice was.

[MMM]

Originally Posted by Tenchu

My bubbles is healthy and beautiful, my wife is evil and conniving. Same old stuff. Thanks.

Good to hear.

Originally Posted by Tenchu

About Obama, I think, in regards to US involvement in the middle east and elsewhere, he's no different than Bush. I think the US foreign policy is about irradicating all opposition to it's global domination, and this transcends party politics. I think you've just got a fascist government that's impossible to change, really.

Well he ended combat operations in Iraq a couple months ago. There are still a lot of troops there, and they need to come home. But you asked me if I regretted my vote. Do I think McCain would have done the same thing? No, we would have probably ramped things up.

Originally Posted by Tenchu

I think some people were under the impression the US would be less hostile, authoritarian and violent under Obama. They were let down. It's just gone to show, as far as the outside world is concerned, you only have America - Democrat or Republican, those things only matter to Americans who can push for their own national policies. But, for the rest of the world, change in government makes for no differences. It's just America.

What aggression has Obama shown? What wars has he started?

Originally Posted by Tenchu

I actually think Hilary Clinton is a terrible foreign minister... I can't stand her. hate her. She's worse than Rice was.

Based on what?

[Sangetsu]

From the moment in first saw Obama I had my doubts about him. No doubt he is a god looking man, and he he is an elegant speaker, but many men who have these traits don't have much real substance. Obama was a lifetime academic before coming to office. I have lived around academics long enough to know that academics are better at arguing or theorizing than they are at actually doing things. Those who teach law often make the worst lawyers, and are a good argument for the old saying "those that can, do. Those that can't, teach."

Of course in the contest between the Obama and McCain, the people were offered little in the way of a choice. McCain was an unpredictable old fossil who felt he was entitled to be president, and who called all the markers he had handed out in a lifetime of politics. Obama was an inexperienced academic who lacked the real-world experience to manage a Burger King competently, but looked good and spoke well.

Little has changed since the days of Bush. "Combat operations" in Iraq have ended, which is a play on words to make it sound as if the war were actually over. US troops will not leave Iraq during Obama's term, because, regardless of whatever promises he made to the antiwar nuts, he knows that pulling out the troops would leave a vacuum which would surely be filled with Islamic fundamentalist West haters.

Guantanamo Bay has not been closed because, much as he might hate the idea of holding suspected terrorists there, there is no better option for dealing with them. If he seriously believed that holding them there was an illegal matter, he could simply make a presidential finding, and it would be officially illegal.

The pseudo-healthcare plan pushed by Obama increases coverage only incrementally, while being hugely expensive. The cost was meant to be revenue neutral to taxpayers, being mainly paid for by businesses and insurance companies. Of course, the amount of money these companies must pay amounts to billions of dollars per year, and money spent on this plan is money which might have been spent on hiring news employees or expanding manufacturing. And, of course the plan has turned out not to be revenue neutral as promised, the GAO says that out-of-pocket expenses are now going to increase.

Both Bush and Obama have been able to work effectively to stop the recession. The problem was too big for the both of them, and throwing money at problems never solves them. People blame the banks and Wall Street for the recession, but they are not to blame. The current recession had it's seeds planted by President Carter when he signed a law called the "community redevelopment act" which lowered lending standards by banks in order to make it easier for inner-city residents to get housing and business loans. The banks didn't necessarily make risky loans because they wanted to, they did it because by law they were required to.

Obama's current team of economists is made up entirely of academics who have no real-world experience to guide them in their policy making process. This is like taking armchair quarterbacks watching a game at home and then putting them on the field to actually play. The results have been sadly predictable.

I don't have much faith in the new crop of congressmen who have just been elected, but I don't think they could do any worse than their predecessors.

[MMM]

I will respond in real time.

Originally Posted by Sangetsu

From the moment in first saw Obama I had my doubts about him.

So do a lot of people that are now admitting they don't like him because his isn't white. I am not saying that is what you are saying, but that is the first thing I thought when I read your first sentence.

What is becoming clear in America is there is a faction of the population that doesn't like our president because of the color of his skin.

Originally Posted by Sangetsu

No doubt he is a god looking man, and he he is an elegant speaker, but many men who have these traits don't have much real substance.

I think you mean "good looking" and "eloquent" but at what point in America did these become negative qualities? Many presidents before Pres. Obama were good looking and eloquent. Do you really think he has less "substance" than Bush or Clinton?

Originally Posted by Sangetsu

Obama was a lifetime academic before coming to office.

Here is the modern paradigm for Tea Party followers: Educated=Untrustworthy and suspicious

Originally Posted by Sangetsu

I have lived around academics long enough to know that academics are better at arguing or theorizing than they are at actually doing things. Those who teach law often make the worst lawyers, and are a good argument for the old saying "those that can, do. Those that can't, teach."

This is a baseless argument. That means people that "do things" are taught by people that don't "do things." If this was true then we would live in a downward spiral of retardation. Just because someone is educated does not mean they are retarded. That statement alone contradicts itself. This Tea Party movement idea that educated=suspicious is its biggest flaw. Sadly, uneducated people take that as a badge of honor, like they aren't the educated vampires, but the simple uneducated humans. The Tea Party movement has done quite a good job making people proud of their ignorance.

Originally Posted by Sangetsu

Of course in the contest between the Obama and McCain, the people were offered little in the way of a choice. McCain was an unpredictable old fossil who felt he was entitled to be president, and who called all the markers he had handed out in a lifetime of politics. Obama was an inexperienced academic who lacked the real-world experience to manage a Burger King competently, but looked good and spoke well.

Obama's problem is that he has been too much of a gentleman. He has not rallied the Democratic party to tout their achievements, as the right will flat-out lie about how evil and dangerous Obama is. It has gotten pretty disgusting lately, and I don't think Pres. Obama was prepared for that. That is why the mid-term elections went like they did.

Originally Posted by Sangetsu

Little has changed since the days of Bush. "Combat operations" in Iraq have ended, which is a play on words to make it sound as if the war were actually over. US troops will not leave Iraq during Obama's term, because, regardless of whatever promises he made to the antiwar nuts, he knows that pulling out the troops would leave a vacuum which would surely be filled with Islamic fundamentalist West haters.

So is he an asshole for ending combat operations, or an asshole for not pulling out all the troops? You can't have it both ways.

Originally Posted by Sangetsu

Guantanamo Bay has not been closed because, much as he might hate the idea of holding suspected terrorists there, there is no better option for dealing with them. If he seriously believed that holding them there was an illegal matter, he could simply make a presidential finding, and it would be officially illegal.

So is he an asshole for closing it, or an asshole for not closing it? You can't have it both ways.

Originally Posted by Sangetsu

The pseudo-healthcare plan pushed by Obama increases coverage only incrementally, while being hugely expensive. The cost was meant to be revenue neutral to taxpayers, being mainly paid for by businesses and insurance companies. Of course, the amount of money these companies must pay amounts to billions of dollars per year, and money spent on this plan is money which might have been spent on hiring news employees or expanding manufacturing. And, of course the plan has turned out not to be revenue neutral as promised, the GAO says that out-of-pocket expenses are now going to increase.

What did you want from the heath care plan that was passed? I am not happy with it, as it isn't strong enough. And now Boehner says one say he wants to reach across the aisle, and the next day he wants to repeal everything that has been passed in the last two years and ensure Obama is not re-elected. Whatever happened to looking out for what the constituents want? I don't think e-brake for the next two years is what they voted for.

Originally Posted by Sangetsu

Both Bush and Obama have been able to work effectively to stop the recession. The problem was too big for the both of them, and throwing money at problems never solves them. People blame the banks and Wall Street for the recession, but they are not to blame. The current recession had it's seeds planted by President Carter when he signed a law called the "community redevelopment act" which lowered lending standards by banks in order to make it easier for inner-city residents to get housing and business loans. The banks didn't necessarily make risky loans because they wanted to, they did it because by law they were required to.

Obama's current team of economists is made up entirely of academics who have no real-world experience to guide them in their policy making process. This is like taking armchair quarterbacks watching a game at home and then putting them on the field to actually play. The results have been sadly predictable.

I don't have much faith in the new crop of congressmen who have just been elected, but I don't think they could do any worse than their predecessors.

You want to blame Carter (1977-1981) for the present financial woes? Wild and radical, for sure. I would put more blame on Reagan and Clinton, and then squarely on W.

The temporary tax cuts on the very wealthy W. put in place 9 years ago didn't work. There is no other evidence than looking that the fact that they didn't work. Extending them is suicide. Look at the tax rates on the wealthy 30, 50, 70 years ago. You might be a little surprised.