Election Day in America, 2010
 

Today is election day in the US. Even though it is a mid-term election, it has dominated the media, as the potential change of power in Congress (House of Representatives and Senate). There are lots of local and state issues getting attention, like potential legalization of marijuana in California.

If you are in the US, are registered and are of age, I encourage you to take the time to vote today.

voted this morning i was the first one at my polling station

we saw aprogramme about the Tea Party.

I wonder what will happen as many seem unhappy with OBAMA!!

I do hope that reason will dominate.

Sorry if it seems like a rather stupid question, but what is the difference between the House of Representatives and the Senate, and what is it that both do?

The Tea Party Movement is an interesting phenomenon. There is no collective voice or opinion among those associated with the Tea Party Movement, other than they don't like Pres. Obama (often for a variety of contradictory reasons).

I agree, I hope reason will dominate, too.

The likely results of today's election makes me want to pack my bags for japan immediately.

Nice catch, MMM.


Yes, people, do vote!

Is the re-vote for legalization of marijuana in California part of this?=D or has this already happened??

I think Prop 19 was defeated.

Yeah, I told my friends I was glad I had already moved to Japan before America screwed itself.

"Maybe We Can't"

huhu.. I watched the slogan on The Daily Show..
really loved the show..
felt sorry for the Dems since the lost a lot of seats..
But I guess Obama will stand up for this..
just watch~

So reps are the majority now?

They have a majority in the House but not the Senate. Don't know how much of an effect this will have since things go from congress to senate to president. So just because republicans pass something in congress it will be harder to pass through the senate, and if it does Obama can veto it. So it seems like republicans and democrats are going to have to work together right?

Where you said "congress" you mean the House. "Congress" is made up of the House and the Senate.

Bills don't have to pass from the House to the Senate; either the House or the Senate can draft a bill. If the bill passes in that body, it is sent to the other body, where it may be passed, amended, or rejected. If amended, the two bodies must then come to agreement on the bill's final contents before it can reach the President for his approval.

If the President vetoes the bill, it can still pass if both the House and the Senate can get enough votes (a 2/3 majority) to override the veto.

But your basic point is correct. Since the U.S. now has a split Congress (a Republican majority in the House, and apparently a slim Democratic majority in the Senate), it will be more difficult for bills to make it to the President, and it will be much more difficult for Congress to override a veto.

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.

What it means is the Republicans are going to do all they can to make sure nothing happens for the next two years to ensure they get the presidency in 2012. What is the big deal? There are three Supreme Court justices in their mid-to-late 70s that will probably be retiring in the next 2 to 6 years. The president chooses who the new justices will be, and that can be one of the most influential decisions of any presidency. Right now it is a 5-4 conservative court. That could get even more conservative if there were a Repub. president.

They do this all the time, switch back and forth and then nothing happens for years. It's partly designed to be useless, hence the three different branches. The orginal framers concluded the more fractured government was, the less centralized power would become and the people would be safer for it.

Governments that truely work quickly and effciently are useually unfriendly to the general population.

Comical, to say the least. You left a country which has by far the world's largest economy, where a normal person has the greatest possible chance of achieving his dreams. And you moved to a country with the world's largest national debt, which is facing negative population growth, and whose shrinking economy will eventually lead to national disaster.

Japan has been screwing itself for more than a decade, and economists are predicting Japan will be unable to avoid defaulting on it's debt. I hope you have a ticket put away to get you home once that happens.

The one thing which is screwing America is the rampant ignorance which pervades it's society. People talk about what is good or bad about politics or the government and are happy to give their opinions about both subjects. In the meantime these same people would be unable to name the vice president, their state senators, or the congressmen of their districts. It's laughable.

We don't always agree, Sangetsu. Today we do.

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.

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.

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.

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.:mad:

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.

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.

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

Why would I regret my vote for Obama?


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.

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.

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.

Good to hear.

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.

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

Based on what?

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.

I will respond in real time.

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.

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?

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

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.

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.

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.

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

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.

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.

He just sent all the troops to Afghanistan. Ironic, no one would back Bush when he wanted more troops, but they gave Obama his support... why?

After he won the election, he promised dialogue and diplomacy with Iran. Mahmoud responded positively and cautiously, and was open. In the end, Obama demanded Iran submit to US authority and do everything it asked. Same old same old.

He's no different with any of his middle east policies, and is just as likely to start another war there as Bush was if he does not get his way.

Based on she's been running around the planet "talking tough" and making threats. All the while she does it with a conniving grin on her face that sickens me. At least the Bush administration could hold a straight face and just tell people they'll get nuked if they don't get on their knees.

Your revisions of history make it hard for me to respond.

No, being my enemy's enemy does not automatically make you my friend. That is your logic, not mine. It was, however, a choice between the lesser of two evils.

Obama is not a facist war monger, though he is clearly out of his league as the Chief Exec of this country. I chose to risk having the country left in limbo for 4 years until hopefully a better leader is found, rather than to turn it over to someone with McCain's history and way of thinking.

I specifically voted to stop McCain who called upon the leaders of the KKK to help with his last several campaigns. Not to vote is to let apathy take the lead and shirk responsibility as a citizen. But then you wouldn't have 1st hand experience with that there, would you? Thailand is not exactly known for free or honest elections or leaders either, is it?

Inteference in the running of foreign countires, wasn't their business. Even through peaceful deals, still manipulating and controling, dictating to others what they ought to and ought not to do, not allowing them any free choice or struggle of their own.

The rest of the world cannot vote in the US election, yet the US thinks it has a right to dictate to us? That's fascism.

The US cannot tell any country what to do. Every country in the world looks out for itself in dealing with international relations.

Well I'm screwed! I'm always in either France or Britain :eek:

On a serious note, you do realise that, that video is pure propaganda... I've got a chapter on this type of video in one of my psychology books. Basically, the gist of it is, you start the video by stating correct facts, generally positive ones about the subject. This gets the viewer hooked and thinks, wow, this person is right and is impartial.

Then gradually, it gets to the real stuff. It mentions things that most average people don't know, twists the facts and makes them seem real. All the while, the viewer still believes that this is an impartial video. By the end of it, most educated people in the subject will simply laugh at the ridiculousness of what's being shown.


If I took the time, I'm pretty sure I could convince you that Algeria will be the next superpower of the century. But the truth is, Algeria is a dump!!!!

Just like a bully in a playground can't tell any other kid what to do?

Wake up, MMM, I'm not bashing Americans, but you surely know what your government is doing abroad?

So you disagree that US foreign policy is fascism?

I would have thought a Muslim of all people would understand, with their manipulation of the middle east and oppression of your people.

If I was to have that kind of opinion AS A MUSLIM, it would be against the west in general, not the US. After the few centuries of peace, it was the English and French that started s**t againt, not the Americans. The US is just continuing this war that's started over a thousand years ago!

As for whether US foreign policy is fascism; I don't think so! Compared to other great civilisations in history, the US hasn't done much! It's started a few wars here and there, but it hasn't tried to take over the world in a fascist way!

You have been saying this for years, Tenchu.