|
Ok who are we kidding? I love politics and have a BA in Political Science....
Anywho.....
Obama touted "Change we can believe in" yet as I see his choices for cabinet positions it looks like Clint era part two. Choices seem to be party-line except for Defense Sec. (which last I read he was keeping Gates there).
I dont mind party-line choices and I am 75% republican and 25% democrat in my beliefs/philosophies, but ok serious....
Hiliary as Sec of State?? As gruff as she is, I dont know. I think hubby Bill better be coming with her on those foreign trips. Not being from NY I dont know how good of a Senator she is, but it just seems a little out of place.
RPG Superstar 2013
|
May not be a solid deal on defense secretary yet, but I am "intrigued" that one side of the aisle has been calling for Gates' head as a member of the Bush administration, then might get to keep his job.
If you listened carefully at his different speeches around the country, Obama made a big deal about rolling out of Iraq in some places, and made a big deal about 'securing victory' and 'not pulling out too soon' in other places.
I'll be offended if he keeps Gates, but I'm already offended so I've just been trying to keep quiet. And focus on football.
Boomer Sooner.
But if he had nothing but new faces with kinder, gentler political philosophies wouldn't the criticism be that he was fielding an ineffective cabinet?
|
|
But if he had nothing but new faces with kinder, gentler political philosophies wouldn't the criticism be that he was fielding an ineffective cabinet?
Depends who is being the critic. You could have other people with tons of experience in their field leading the cabinet position.
I guess my point is that Hillary rubs alot of people the wrong way with her HBIC demeaner....
I dont care either way, I just thought it was interesting that his platform was about change, when in reality nothing changed...
The man ain't even president yet. How much change can you expect out of him when he's still fielding his team?
Can things get any worse?
I'm totally with that ticket!
|
I dont expect any change from him.
Its the Congress that scares the Hell out of me!!!
There maybe truth there. Republicans have become a deadstick and the Democrats are moving in like some movie where the guy is blacking out while the bad guys are discussing what to do next.
Then the guy wakes up in a torture chamber.
I don't mind a direction that both parties are for, but this is going to be pretty one sided for a bit.
This new stimulus package with freeway improvements sounds like a major carrot to hold or withold to get the states to do whatever the feds want. Jo Schmo is the selling point, but the real deal is the freeway improvement schtick.
Cheers,
Zuxius
1. The problem is, no matter who you vote for, a politician gets in
2. The problem is, no matter who you vote for, an American gets in .
3. The problem is, no matter who you vote for, the media wil show them so often you'll be bored with them in a week....
lol !!
:-P
George the fifth ? Don't you mean the 3rd ?
(mind you, the fifth wasnt much better)
Could be worse, you could have Margaret Thatcher in charge.
|
If you (in the US) want to come back to the UK, it is not too late.
Some of the benefits:
Queen Elizabeth II as head of state.
You could keep your own regional government these days, running your own affairs, whilst being able to send MPs to Westminister to vote on how the English have to do things.
Associate membership of the European Union, meaning no trade tariffs (in theory) between the US and most of Europe. (The Russians are not yet EU members, so you get to still be nasty as you like to them with regard to imports/exports.)The problems:
The EU will try to tell you how to do things, but you could follow the example of the French and just ignore the bits which you don't like.Other things:
Queen Elizabeth II as head of state, Prince Philip (prone to saying occasionally humorously embarrassing things about foreigners (which the press promptly blow out of all proportion)) for free!No more pound/dollar exchange rate! (This makes Paizo products fixed price here in the UK, when they have been going down and up like a yo-yo recently.)
The BBC will show you Doctor Who at the same time as the rest of the UK, instead of making you wait half a year for satellite/cable airing.
Oh, and you proably get increased access to British Soap operas, too, which I gather are appreciated by some over on the west side of the Atlantic.
Another problem. Persuading the British that we want you lot back. *Goes to dig up a list of conditions*
|
Wouldn't a change back to the Clinton era be a HUGE improvement for America? The whole Dow 13000, Unemployment at 4.0%, Budget Surplus, America respected around the world as a force for good, No Gitmo etc, and all for the price of a President who couldn't keep his pants on. Pretty good deal if you ask me.
And we Brits would love to rule America again. You lot can deal with the social affairs, while we run your military. We'd soon sort stuff out. ;)
The population of the U.S. would dwindle to 1/3 if the Brits ruled America again because of all the car accidents from having to drive on the wrong side of the road.
I loved Kevin Kline in "A Fish Called Wanda"....
;)
Wouldn't a change back to the Clinton era be a HUGE improvement for America?
We'd need a Republican Congress to get all those previous benefits. With a Clinton era executive branch and a democrat congress, not so much.
If the Dems don't get a filibuster proof majority, then I think the Reps should be very careful about doing filibusters. They need to vote against things that they think are bad, but still allow the Dems to do them, so that if they really are bad, they can blow up in the Dems face. "Hey we told you it was a bad choice, we voted against it, but these are the folk you wanted to decided things."
I loved Kevin Kline in "A Fish Called Wanda"....
"And WHAT do the English eat with chips...?!"
|
|
Wouldn't a change back to the Clinton era be a HUGE improvement for America?We'd need a Republican Congress to get all those previous benefits. With a Clinton era executive branch and a democrat congress, not so much.
If the Dems don't get a filibuster proof majority, then I think the Reps should be very careful about doing filibusters. They need to vote against things that they think are bad, but still allow the Dems to do them, so that if they really are bad, they can blow up in the Dems face. "Hey we told you it was a bad choice, we voted against it, but these are the folk you wanted to decided things."
You know what? It's ALL on them now.
I'm sure Obama can spin it any way he wants in 2012. There's voters that thought that the Repub's still had the majority in congress in 2008. I predict that by 2010, though, the Repub's will at least be able to filibuster.Change? What is change, if you get my drift? It's a mantra focus, nothing more nothing less.
Change? What is change, if you get my drift? It's a mantra focus, nothing more nothing less.
As the adage says, the more things change ...
|
RPG Superstar 2013
|
Wouldn't a change back to the Clinton era be a HUGE improvement for America?
The DOW passed 12000 for the first time after Bush became president (2006). Also 13 and 14 thousand by in the same year. Must have been that awful economy. Which certainly couldn't have been revived by middle class tax cuts.
Obama promised a lot of things, and is already telling us he can't deliver on some promises. He's not even in office yet and he's already saying "it's worse than we thought" and "it might take a full eight years to do some of the things I wanted to do". Before the election, Biden said "when we get into office, there's going to be a catastrophe and it's going to be harder than we think it is."
So, we are getting a Clinton staff, with a Chicago liberal president with zero history of change or accomplishment. The media maintained race as a part of his campaign, and he based his campaign on the 40 year old 'tax cuts for the rich' chestnut.
There was dumb joke kids used to play when I was in middle school. You'd ask them for change and they'd say "sure...from your hand to mine."
That's the only change we're getting.
On the upside...I am excited to have political dialogue with anyone if there won't be insults or ad hom. I am one of those fools who believes it can be done. I've never kicked anyone off my gaming table for political differences, and I'm happy to learn another perspective, while explaining why I believe what Republicans {[used to] claim to} believe.
Also..have heart about the economy. According to Dave Ramsey, the market has never taken more than a year to recover from bad news and resume a climb. Now, there are corrections scattered in there, and this current mess might require a longer recovery, but the old saying is true, if you don't pull out of your stocks or 401k, you haven't lost anything yet.
I just wish the people who MADE lenders agree to bad loans would own their mistake. At this point, I wonder if Jamie Gorelick isn't trying to just destroy this country by herself.
|
|
Wouldn't a change back to the Clinton era be a HUGE improvement for America?We'd need a Republican Congress to get all those previous benefits. With a Clinton era executive branch and a democrat congress, not so much.
If the Dems don't get a filibuster proof majority, then I think the Reps should be very careful about doing filibusters. They need to vote against things that they think are bad, but still allow the Dems to do them, so that if they really are bad, they can blow up in the Dems face. "Hey we told you it was a bad choice, we voted against it, but these are the folk you wanted to decided things."
Theres a refreshing philosophy. Lets hope things go bad so it blows up in the democrats face. Thats partisan politics at its finest. I would hope that regardless of what party has majority control that we all would wish for things to go well. Who cares who gets the credit. Just get the country pointed in the right direction again. I personally long for the days when the biggest problem we had was the Starr report and a president who was doing interns as a pasttime. There were things to not like about Clinton, but the country for the most part was very healthy under his leadership.
Be that as it may, it is quite apparent that the right is chomping at the bit to start burning Obama at the stake even before he has been sworn into office. It's mind blowing to me that people who care enough about our country to be interested in it's politics (which anyone who is a major supporter of either party is almost by definition), would want our leader to fail on a colossal scale just so they can get power again. I have felt like the Bush administration was like being shackled in the 9th layer of hell these last 8 years, but I have still wanted him and our leadership to succeed. I believe in Barack Obama as a leader and feel confident we can achieve great things under his administration. But even if McCain had won, I would still be hoping that he would be able to succeed in leading this nation where it needs to go. Certainly I wouldn't be wishing for him to suffer a catastrophic failure just so the Democrats can win the next election.
Another problem. Persuading the British that we want you lot back. *Goes to dig up a list of conditions*
To quote a gentleman from another respected online forum.
When asked by an American if we celebrated the forth of July I said "No.....but perhaps we should"
I think we'd be willing to let in certain groups : Say, the paizo staff, and all women named Liv Tyler.
That seems reasonable.
|
|
Be that as it may, it is quite apparent that the right is chomping at the bit to start burning Obama at the stake even before he has been sworn into office.
I for one, as a member of the right, hope that everything goes well for Obama as president. But you have to admit that the attitudes we are seeing on the right towards Obama were the same attitudes manifested by the left in 2000 towards George W. Bush. It can't go both ways. The left can't treat a Republican president the way that they have treated President Bush for the last eight years and the just expect that Obama will be welcomed with open arms by his oposition party. There are always exceptions, but speaking for myself, both sides need to put aside their pride and make ammends if any kind of healing is going to occur.
<Humour on...>
The Union Jack ain't never flew over Texas.
Texas ? Isn't that the bit even the Mexicans didnt want ?
:-Plol.
Actually,lets be honest.... given the state of our economies, I don't think either the UK or the US have cause to feel smug right now...
Democracy as it exists these days is a funny old concept, if you think about it... We choose our leaders by a popularity context...rather like "Dancing with Stars" ("Strictly come dancing" in the UK)....
:
:
...And as the UK version of that is proving, that doesnt mean the best dancer wins....
<Humour off>
In both the UK and US, you could potentially argue we live in bipartisan Oligarchies, not Democracies...
|
|
I for one, as a member of the right, hope that everything goes well for Obama as president. But you have to admit that the attitudes we are seeing on the right towards Obama were the same attitudes manifested by the left in 2000 towards George W. Bush. It can't go both ways. The left can't treat a Republican president the way that they have treated President Bush for the last eight years and the just expect that Obama will be welcomed with open arms by his oposition party. There are always exceptions, but speaking for myself, both sides need to put aside their pride and make ammends if any kind of healing is going to occur.
Be that as it may, it is quite apparent that the right is chomping at the bit to start burning Obama at the stake even before he has been sworn into office.
Firstly, I don't respect presidents that condone torture. Secondly, Obama has tried to reach out the the right, while all we liberals received from Bush was denouncement and cries of "unpatriotic". Bush filled his cabinet with those that agreed with him and his worldview entirely, with no exceptions. When Colin Powell showed himself to be a rational individual, he was promptly let go. Obama is planning on stocking his staff with former enemies and even some politicians from the other side of the aisle. Now, of course almost all of his staff will be democrats. To think or expect otherwise is ludicrous. But even using some is indicative of a willingness to compromise. And compromise is the way that American politics succeeds. Sure, Clinton had a primarily Republican congress. But to lay America's success solely on either Clinton or his congress is foolish. The success of the Clinton years is due to their willingness to compromise, at least until Congress became increasingly volatile towards the President. The failure of the Bush years can be partially attributed to both parties unwillingness to compromise (although I doubt I would cave to any of Bush's demands). I am confident that history will put W down as the worst president in United States history.
Of course, just thinking about him makes me grumpy. And I just realized I opened a huge can of worms. Please, don't burn me too hard.
Theres a refreshing philosophy. Lets hope things go bad so it blows up in the democrats face. Thats partisan politics at its finest. I would hope that regardless of what party has majority control that we all would wish for things to go well.Wouldn't a change back to the Clinton era be a HUGE improvement for America?We'd need a Republican Congress to get all those previous benefits. With a Clinton era executive branch and a democrat congress, not so much.
If the Dems don't get a filibuster proof majority, then I think the Reps should be very careful about doing filibusters. They need to vote against things that they think are bad, but still allow the Dems to do them, so that if they really are bad, they can blow up in the Dems face. "Hey we told you it was a bad choice, we voted against it, but these are the folk you wanted to decided things."
I see you didn't read my statement very carefully, instead projecting what you believed I was saying. Read it again. "so that if they really are bad, they can blow up in the Dems face." Notice the "if" in there. That leaves open the possibility that they might not be bad in fact. There is nothing wrong with giving people the chance to fail. Do you think it would be better to just filibuster and not let anything be done? No, I don't think you do. The Dems won, they have control, and they should be given the chance to fail or succeed with their ideas.
I'll just chime in to say I think that Hillary would make a better Secretary of Health than of State.
|
|
Firstly, I don't respect presidents that condone torture. Secondly, Obama has tried to reach out the the right, while all we liberals received from Bush was denouncement and cries of "unpatriotic". Bush filled his cabinet with those that agreed with him and his worldview entirely, with no exceptions. When Colin Powell showed himself to be a rational individual, he was promptly let go. Obama is planning on stocking his staff with former enemies and even some politicians from the other side of the aisle. Now, of course almost all of his staff will be democrats. To think or expect otherwise is ludicrous. But even using some is indicative of a willingness to compromise. And compromise is the way that American politics succeeds. Sure, Clinton had a primarily Republican congress. But to lay America's success solely on either Clinton or his congress is foolish. The success of the Clinton years is due to their willingness to compromise, at least until Congress became increasingly volatile towards the President. The failure of the Bush years can be partially attributed to both parties unwillingness to compromise (although I doubt I would cave to any of Bush's demands). I am confident that history will put W down as the worst president in United States history.
A few points of comment. 1) I was comparing Bush's treatment before he took office with Obama's treatment before he takes office. Prior to January 2000, George Bush had not said anything about torture, yet I had many Democrats, incuding my boss, tell me that Bush was my president, not theirs immediately after the election. "Selected, not elected anyone?" 2) Obama is also filling his cabinat with people who agree with his basic world view, and just like George W. Bush, they are mostly retreads from the last administration of his party. 3) Colin Powell quit, he was not fired. 4) It is true that the Republicans did work with Clinton, but he also moved mostly center-right following the 1994 election. It is also true that the Democrats showed a distinct lack of willingness to work with the current administration both between 200-2002 and 2006-2008. That means that the current president has had a decidedly hostile Democrat majority running at least one house of Congress for half of his administration. 5) Most objective historical surveys rank Bush 43 as a middle ground president. He is usually ranked somewhere between 3-26 and is usually 1 to 2 steps above or below Bill Clinton. Andrew Johnson usually ends up ranked as worst president ever.
As for the torture and the patriotism issues, The Democrat perty has shown a distinct unwillingness to shut down any of the programs that supposedly involved torture or civil rights violations. Since members of congress get an in-depth briefing on each and every program, based on my experience they usually run 2 to 3 hours, and we get a 30 second sound bite, maybe they know things that they are not telling us. I have also never heard anyone on the right question the patriotism of anyone on the left, unless it was someone like John Walker Lynn. Many on the left have interputed these statements as such, but no one that I have heard has ever explicitly stated that the left was unpatriotic.
I'm totally with that ticket!
That's because you don't live in the country right now.
|
|
"I'll give your president the same respect you gave mine"
a bumper sticker I saw...Nice.
I thought the President was America's President and if you don't like that, you can leave. Or does that only apply when he's Republican?
It works both ways, guys. Neither side has covered themselves in glory the last eight years as far as reaching across the aisle goes.
EDIT: David, couple of examples off the top of my head: The people in the crowd John McCain shushed and the treatment of the Dixie Chicks. Not saying the Democrats were saints by any means, but neither were the Republicans.
EDIT 2: As for Congress, Republicans supported Bill Clinton because he moved towards them as you acknowledged. Democrats didn't support Bush because he didn't.
|
|
Obama touted "Change we can believe in" yet as I see his choices for cabinet positions it looks like Clinton era part two.
We have gotten off-topic (in the off topic board no less) with our discussion. I believe the OP is right. During the primaries Obama did say that Hillary was a return to politics as usual while he wanted to go in a new direction. How does that jive with what seems to be his current efforts to bring back as many Clinton administration people as possible?
|
|
Is that the same Republican congress that shut down the US government in 1995 over Gingrich's ego, then spent the last few years of the Clinton presidency ranting on about Lewinsky?
I do find it curious that there was never talk of a Democratic Congress to balance out the Republican presidency during Bush's terms. There was talk of establishing a permanent Republican majority though.
|
|
We have gotten off-topic (in the off topic board no less) with our discussion. I believe the OP is right. During the primaries Obama did say that Hillary was a return to politics as usual while he wanted to go in a new direction. How does that jive with what seems to be his current efforts to bring back as many Clinton administration people as possible?
Obama touted "Change we can believe in" yet as I see his choices for cabinet positions it looks like Clinton era part two.
I think in a round about way with my initial thought was ...Obama should have touted, "Lets do do the opposite of what Bush decreed!"
During the campaigning, Obama would always say we need change! But never said what that was. No specifics to what he wanted to accomplish and when he finally gave a hint at what he wanted he has kinda backed off a lil. To be fair and put the shoe on the other foot, McCain said he was a maverick, but WTF does that really mean?I think Obama has some qualities about him and I thought McCain did too. Nobody is perfect(apologies to Sebastian). Of course I didnt vote for either of them (or any other President), but thats a story for another time. :)
|
|
Is that the same Republican congress that shut down the US government in 1995 over Gingrich's ego, then spent the last few years of the Clinton presidency ranting on about Lewinsky?
Actually the charges were perjury, obstruction of justice, and abuse of power. Lewinsky was just part of the perjury charge. It was more the media that made it all about Monica and sex.
As for Obama picking former members of the Clinton Administration: as long as they're qaulified and capable, I've got no problem with it.