Next best thing for the US (and perhaps the world)

[Ithildin]

He was not a lame duck the last two years. You might think he was a lame duck, but it isn't true. Also If he was such a lame duck then why did he get re-elected?

This is the definition of "lame duck" I'm thinking of: an ineffectual person or thing. I feel this way about both the President and Congress; as I said, I fault both for the gridlock, and voted against all incumbents this year. Yes, the President was reelected, as were many members of Congress, both Democrats and Republicans. About 51.2% of voters indicate the President has been effective overall, and about 48.8% indicate he hasn't been.

 

Unless compromises are made this time, on both sides, our government will remain ineffectual. I think you and I can probably agree on that.

[Ithildin]

I hardly see how Obama is blameworthy the fiscal cliff. If anyone is to blame, blame Ben Bernanke.

Believe me, I hold Mr. Bernanke responsible as well, but can't express this with my vote since he's not an elected official. Had Governor Romney won the election, he wouldn't have appointed Bernanke to a third term. Naturally I fault George W. for appointing Bernanke originally, and wish President Obama hadn't re-nominated him for a second term.

[colourwheel]

This is the definition of "lame duck" I'm thinking of: an ineffectual person or thing. I feel this way about both the President and Congress; as I said, I fault both for the gridlock, and voted against all incumbents this year.

 

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Lame_duck_(politics)

 

lame duck:

1.An official (esp. the president) in the final period of office, after the election of a successor.

2.An ineffectual or unsuccessful person or thing.

 

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=YLQ-OKa6OZQ&feature=player_embedded

YLQ-OKa6OZQ

 

lame duck my butt... :tongue:

 

But that is ok if you feel that way....

Edited November 9, 2012 by colourwheel

[Ithildin]

lame duck my butt... :tongue:

I agree, if you're saying President Obama has accomplished many things. He has, with both positive and negative results. Regarding the impending "fiscal cliff" in particular, the following is from Wikipedia, so I don't know how accurate it is:

 

The United States fiscal cliff refers to the effect of a series of recent laws which, if unchanged, will result in tax increases, spending cuts, and a corresponding reduction in the budget deficit beginning in 2013.[1] These laws include tax increases due to the expiration of the so-called Bush tax cuts and across-the-board spending cuts under the Budget Control Act of 2011.

 

The year-over-year changes for fiscal years 2012–2013 include a 19.63% increase in taxes and 0.25% reduction in spending.[2]

 

***

 

The Budget Control Act of 2011 was passed under the political environment of a partisan stalemate, in which Democrats and Republicans could not agree on how to reduce the deficit. It was thought that the blunt cuts of budget sequestration and sharp revenue increases would be mutually undesirable to both parties and provide an impetus and deadline to bring the sides together to solve the deficit problem.

With regard to the part I emphasized in yellow, I certainly hope it works out that way, since our government has been ineffective at making the necessary compromises to date. :down:

[Maharg67]

The political situation in the USA is reflected around the world and arises from problems deeply embedded in the institutions of the world. That is the real problems are deeply systematic and not just nationalistic or local. I wonder that any national leader could hope to change matters, US or Australian or Chinese or Ugandan or ?????, unless going for some fundamental changes. Even if they risked doing so, could get the resources and support to do so, then they would face powerful forces opposing change. Would that lead to some kind of world war?

 

Getting focused on one's own national elections is understandable, we Australians do the same thing of course, but thanks to world wide trends of the past few decades, all nations are now part of a whole world so that national borders seem to be increasingly less important. Whether this is good, or bad, is something I have yet to decide; I will probably go for both but I am wary of Globalization and any 'New World Order'.

 

This is a generalization and posted here just to remind people that the USA, and the US Presidents, can not really be seen as a separate zone from the world any more, any more than the Commonwealth of Australia can be. The US President, like the Australian Prime Minister, is only one person in a world populated by billions.

[colourwheel]

The Republican party needs to accept climate change as a reality. Climate change mostly is contributed to man accelerating it's existing conditions. When you have a political party that rejects Global warming when the evidence is majorly effecting the south and east coast almost annually in a dramatic way and continuing to get worst every year, it's hard to argue that it isn't a problem or it doesn't exist.

 

The Republican party needs to accept that religion in america isn't exclusive to being just christian or a religious belief within the christian faith. If a political party that exist in a country where there is freedom of religion, to reject any other religious beliefs will be their undoing over the next few decades. To reject evolution and science is rejecting progress and growth of technology advances. I am not saying those who believe in creation should just stop believing yet to reject anyone who doesn't is automatically rejecting over a majority of the population of america.

 

The Republican party needs to embrace different sexual orientations. With changing demographics to exclude anyone who is anything other than being heterosexual is just excluding people from the party who is bisexual, lesbian, or gay.

 

The Republican party needs to appeal more to women of america and womens issues. Example: when you are a political party that wishes to limit government yet give government control over a womens body it's dirrectly a contradiction to the main platform it represents.

 

The republican party needs to desperately remove itself from right-wing media and Foxnews. Example: Foxnews has damaged it's reputation as a credible sorces of accurate and informative reporting where it has gotten their own political party in trouble. When you have politicians that only watches Foxnews for their info they tend to get stuck in embarrassing situations and put their whole political party in a spot light. Also extreme Right-wing media indirrectly influences their political base in sexist and racial manner that damages the republican party's reputation as a whole.

 

The Republican party desperately needs to change and repair the reputation the party has. I honestly believe the republican party can survive if they reform because there are a lot of people in america who do think small government could work yet to have ideology the party clearly represents limits people identifying with it to grow and political third parties don't stand a chance yet with the government controlled by republicans and democrats.

 

This is just my opinion after watching and reading on how the party needs to reform yet like anything there is so much reform the party needs to do to fix their reputation i honestly don't see it being fixed over night or anytime soon. But if they think that to fix their party is to just get new token black man or someone who is latino to represent them, that would be a hollow attempt to appear like the party has reformed when it's clear the party only wants to move farther to the right.

 

One thing that could help if they think their party wishes to survive using the "token" person to represent their party is to get a black, female, lesbian, muslim to run for president. Which I honestly don't see happening for the republican party anytime soon, even as a hollow attempt. lol

Edited November 11, 2012 by colourwheel

[Ghogiel]

Why would anyone who wanted 'small government' vote for the pubbies.

 

I wonder what people really expect out of it if they did have small government. I serious doubt things like patent protections etc would actually ever get dropped under the pubs. they are pro corporation by significant degree. So I reckon it would be all just hot air at the end and never would a GOP government relinquish the powers of meddling, both in business and with the people.

 

Sexual or religious orientation should be a non issue, there should be no stance on it. No party should have to define where they sit on those 'issues'.

 

As for climate change, is it like evolution deniers?> BUT IT'S JUST A THEORY!

 

:wallbash:

[colourwheel]

Why would anyone who wanted 'small government' vote for the pubbies.

 

Believe me I wonder the same thing... but the nation as a whole is divided on this for some reason when you concider most third party libertarians factor in the equation. most libertarians lean more to the right without the right-wing ideology.

 

Sexual or religious orientation should be a non issue, there should be no stance on it. No party should have to define where they sit on those 'issues'.

 

The Rebulican party for some reason is know for being against anything other than being heterosexual and christian faith. It's really stupid honestly because as a political party it alienates anyone who isn't heterosexual and christian faith.

 

As for climate change, is it like evolution deniers?> BUT IT'S JUST A THEORY!

 

A theory that only people who don't look at the evidence. Just try to explain to the people in the east coast or the south coast of north america that it's only a theory who don't have homes anymore. Climate change is more real to people who live in the areas it is hitting annually every year and getting worst every time it hits them. The arctic glaciers are melting which use to reflect the suns rays away and instead shooting into the dark sea accelerating the rate of violent weather conditions every year because of man made co2 emissions. global warming is only real to those it is actually effecting who use to be non believers... reguardless if you believe if it exist or not just look at the history of weather conditions.... If you look closely enough selective regions of the world are effected each year by more violent storms and weather conditions that are larger and more consistant every year as time goes by. Hurricane sandy was 1000 miles in diameter. Next year it is projected another storm to hit that will be larger than 1000 miles in diameter in the east. Even if you just think it's a theory why is there more and more people suffering from violent weather storms every year? Is it just a consistant violent act of god that gets worst every year? Either way you think about it, it is a problem man made or not. The democratic party seems to have more ideas on the table to address this issue that makes sense than the republican party which just tries to ignore it or pretend it doesn't exist or its not an issue at all.

 

Regaurdless, isn't it better to be safe than sorry? When so many scientologist are saying that man is accelerating the rate of the world climate is changing you would think that most people would atleast think otherwise beyond personal beliefs. It's like people who don't take care of their body. They tend to have very serious health issues later on or even die early from obesity or high cholesterol having constant strokes.

 

People need to learn to take care of the planet just like people worry about taking care of their bodies. I just hope if i do ever have children they won't have to worry about a world constantly at war against violent weather conditions. some scientologist predict that the whole arctic circle could melt this century if the world doesn't cut down on co2 emissions in a major way.

Edited November 11, 2012 by colourwheel

[Ghogiel]

scientologist

scientologist

scientologist

scientologist

[colourwheel]

scientologist

scientologist

scientologist

scientologist

 

 

:laugh: lol