-
Welcome to Religious Forums, a friendly forum to discuss all religions in a friendly surrounding.
Your voice is missing! You will need to register to get access to the following site features:- Reply to discussions and create your own threads.
- Our modern chat room. No add-ons or extensions required, just login and start chatting!
- Access to private conversations with other members.
We hope to see you as a part of our community soon!
Republicans Have Taken the House!
- Thread starter Sunstone
- Start date
Republicans will toot their horns (paid for by their corporate bankrollers). Democrats will make lame excuses for losing. Then two years of deadlock followed by the apocalypse.
I would not bet against you being right.
McBell
Unbound
Nor will I.
YmirGF
Bodhisattva in Recovery
Run, Forest, run!
Ditto.
Borrow money from abroad so you can give tax cuts to the rich. What a crazy idea.
One of these days the chickens will come home to roost.
http://www.usdebtclock.org/
Requia
Active Member
I guess that absolutely nothing will change, this need not conflict with your idea though.
Terrywoodenpic
Oldest Heretic
I have great difficulty understanding the American political system.
Virtually in all other western systems, when the government loses its majority, the winning side takes over. In those cases it is the Lower house result that decides the issue.
Where there is an elected President like France, he has to choose a new prime minister who can command a majority, who in turn leads the parliament. This can cause a few weeks disruption.
The American System results in the President and his administration being emasculated, and a powerless government continuing for the next few years. Even when a new president is elected it takes a few months for them to take over.
The president and administration are elected for only four years, at least two of those years are taken up with campaigning where effective government is replaced by popularity stakes.
If they lose the mid term elections, at least an extra year is taken up in Limbo.
When you compare this to the UK system, after the Prime minister calls a new election. The whole process takes six weeks before a new Government is in place. In less than one hour the old Prime minister and ministers resign are replaced by the new one. At no time is the country with out effective Government.
Virtually in all other western systems, when the government loses its majority, the winning side takes over. In those cases it is the Lower house result that decides the issue.
Where there is an elected President like France, he has to choose a new prime minister who can command a majority, who in turn leads the parliament. This can cause a few weeks disruption.
The American System results in the President and his administration being emasculated, and a powerless government continuing for the next few years. Even when a new president is elected it takes a few months for them to take over.
The president and administration are elected for only four years, at least two of those years are taken up with campaigning where effective government is replaced by popularity stakes.
If they lose the mid term elections, at least an extra year is taken up in Limbo.
When you compare this to the UK system, after the Prime minister calls a new election. The whole process takes six weeks before a new Government is in place. In less than one hour the old Prime minister and ministers resign are replaced by the new one. At no time is the country with out effective Government.
Last edited:
Smoke
Done here.
The Democratic failure to offer any articulate and principled opposition to Republican lunacy will continue, as will the (mainly) Republican-driven descent of the United States into third-world oligarchy. Liberia, here we come.
The good part is, the ******* Blue Dogs took a huge smackdown. Half of them are out, including half of their leadership team. For the Democratic Party to really be worth a ****, the rest of them need to go, too. Send them over to the Republicans; that's whom they vote with anyway.
Another good thing is that Angle, O'Donnell, and Paladino all lost, showing that although the American voter is stupid, there are some states in which he is not actually retarded.
The bad part is, the Democrats held the Senate, and although they won't be able to accomplish anything -- they couldn't even accomplish anything when they had the House and the Senate -- the Republicans will be able to convince American voters in 2012 that the problem is that there aren't enough Republicans in government.
Last edited:
SoliDeoGloria
Active Member
Republicans will toot their horns (paid for by their corporate bankrollers). Democrats will make lame excuses for losing. Then two years of deadlock followed by the apocalypse.
lol nice. I try not to get involved in politics too much due to my disgust in the subject, but this is really getting out of hand. Even as a christian, I am embarrassed and disgusted at this country's politics.It is my own personal opinion that any true Bible believing Christians should distance themselves as far away from american politics as possible if they know what's good for them. All these politicians, that are claiming christianity, are doing is no more than ruining the world view of what true Christianity is.
I just also wanted to make the point that not all "christians" are republicans/tea party members and what happened last night truly scares me.
Sincerely,
SoliDeoGloria
Last edited:
A
angellous_evangellous
Guest
I think that this is an opportunity for Obama to really shine... if he can do what Clinton did with a Republican Congress.
The good thing - thank goodness - is that the Democrats could hang on to the Senate.
But two things upset me:
1) The big money Democrats did not show up to play, leaving the candidates under-funded
2) Democrats did not show up to vote - despite the polls saying that they were in the majority
So I don't think that the Republican take-over of the House is a mandate from the American people. It's a media-created momentum against Obama funded by corporate cash.
Funny thing is that two years ago the Republicans were spending money like crazy, creating a bigger government than ever before in American history, and destroying the economy with deregulation. And their platform is the same as it was then: fiscal responsibility, less government, and no bail-outs.
The good thing - thank goodness - is that the Democrats could hang on to the Senate.
But two things upset me:
1) The big money Democrats did not show up to play, leaving the candidates under-funded
2) Democrats did not show up to vote - despite the polls saying that they were in the majority
So I don't think that the Republican take-over of the House is a mandate from the American people. It's a media-created momentum against Obama funded by corporate cash.
Funny thing is that two years ago the Republicans were spending money like crazy, creating a bigger government than ever before in American history, and destroying the economy with deregulation. And their platform is the same as it was then: fiscal responsibility, less government, and no bail-outs.
YmirGF
Bodhisattva in Recovery
But Nate, the Dumbs... errr Dems, sorry, outspent the Republicans overall.
And they were spending like drunken sailor with the help of dear, sweet, Nancy Pelosi... all the way...
Overall, though I was fairly dismissive of the "Restore inSanity" bash a few days back, it appears that some sanity was restored.
I guess now we may have a chance to see if Obama can actually organize his way out of a paper bag. Up to this point, I haven't seen much evidence that he can.
Last edited:
A
angellous_evangellous
Guest
Not yet, I don't think.
All the outspending numbers that I've seen for the Dems are projected over perhaps a 30 year period, centered mostly on the health care reforms.
Bush spent more than all the previous Presidents combined - in 8 years.
YmirGF
Bodhisattva in Recovery
Ah, ok... so now you are going to move the goal posts beyond what you originally posted. Nate, I'm shocked.
If that actually happens, people might finally lose patience with the Tea Party and friends.
I don't see the current situation as being that different from a minority government in the system we have here or in the UK. The Prime Minister doesn't command the support of the majority of the House of Commons, so he has to tread carefully.
I think YMir was talking about the parties' election campaign spending.
A
angellous_evangellous
Guest
Um, no. If you can show that the Obama Administration has actually outspent the Bush Administration, I'll go right along with it.
But projections of spending long after the Obama Administration is gone - and with plenty of time for people to stop it - is not comparing apples to apples. Who's moving goal posts when in the comparison is inaccurate?