US presidential election...

[Frosty]

I've given up hope for anything good to come out of any Presidential candidate..

There's just no way 1 President can come in and fix everything that is wrong with US politics.
There are too many corrupt politicians, and the President always ends up as a scapegoat for our countrys problems.
And it makes me almost sick that every time I go to vote for a president, I feel I am voting for the lesser of two evils.

I'm not sure everyone understands the impact of the world's dwindling fuel reserves on the economy either (not just ours).
It's going to get worse before it gets better...and no matter who the next President is, they can't restock the world's oil supply. Our enconomy is going to suffer.

That being said...Does anyone know how much fuel we go through in a week with our troops overseas protecting us? I'm not against us being there, I am just really curious.
I'm sure a tank get's slighty worse gas millage than an SUV.

[Tonuss]

One thing that confused me when I was reading up on this in Wikipedia - The Democrats currently hold a mjority in congress, both in the senate, and the house of reps. Yet the president is a Republican, and has the power to veto any bills that come through congress.

How does any legislation get passed like this? I mean since the president is from the opposing party, wouldn't he just veto any bills the Democrats pass up trhough congress?

Cheers,
Stealthy

That would seem to be the case, but practical considerations make it work better than we would think. On one level, there is quid pro quo to consider-- if you're willing to compromise on an issue, you may get the same consideration in turn later on. Also, bills can be discussed and modified before they're voted on, which allows some objections to be addressed and make it more palatable for both sides. Many bills introduced by one party will have 'riders' attached that benefit what the other party wants, which is one of the ways they compromise (although it is also used to kill some legislation, by making the new bill unattractive to the party that introduced it). And contrary to common belief, lobbyists spread their dollars to both parties pretty liberally, which can help push legislation through that might otherwise be held up.

Democracy here works best when people take a practical approach to compromise and negotiation. It's not always pretty, but more effective than it would seem at first glance.

As for the question about coverage, yes, McCain got very little coverage compared to Clinton and Obama, but that is because he sewed up the nomination early on. Also, aside from the fact that Clinton and Obama still had to campaign against each other the novelty of a woman and a black candidate running (much less two in the same election year) also made for more news coverage. And they're both relatively new; McCain has made a few runs at the Presidency, so he is something of a known quantity. Now that the Democratic nominee is settled, we'll start to see more coverage that includes McCain, since the networks will be anxious to compare him with Obama and analyze them and the election.

[Anozireth]

One thing that confused me when I was reading up on this in Wikipedia - The Democrats currently hold a mjority in congress, both in the senate, and the house of reps. Yet the president is a Republican, and has the power to veto any bills that come through congress.

How does any legislation get passed like this? I mean since the president is from the opposing party, wouldn't he just veto any bills the Democrats pass up trhough congress?

Cheers,
Stealthy

It's also worth noting that with a large enough majority in Congress in favor of a bill, they can override the president's veto. It takes a 2/3 majority for that to happen though, which makes it somewhat rare. Bush has vetoed 9 bills (which is actually the lowest of the last 50 years), and 2 of those have been overridden.

[mackenziemi]

May I suggest the off-topic forum in the most friendly way possible?

Done.

The media thrives on "interesting" subjects. Because there was little to no actual conflict on the republic party, it wasn't "interesting" enough to report about.

Meanwhile, the Clinton/Obama thing was a pretty neck-and-neck race for a while there, with strong opinions on both sides. That made it something interesting to report about.

I luv ya Vyndree but I have to disagree with you on this. Speaking as a conservative and one that watches the Republicans, it was a "shoot out at the O.K. Coral." IMHO McCain is only the candidate because he was the guy left standing after all the shots had been fired. Don't underestimate the power of media bias. Really, again IMHO it cost Clinton the nomination.
That said the thing that is interesting about this election is that on both sides,the anaylsts are saying that they will lose. The majority of Republicans aren't happy with McCain. At least 1/2 of the Democrats aren't happy with Obama. Further both of these candidates aren't doing well in the states that they, traditionally, have had to do well in. For example McCain didn't take the South. Obama lost New York, California, and Florida. So this is shaping up to be interesting if disappointing.

[Ughmahedhurtz]

One thing that confused me when I was reading up on this in Wikipedia - The Democrats currently hold a mjority in congress, both in the senate, and the house of reps. Yet the president is a Republican, and has the power to veto any bills that come through congress.

How does any legislation get passed like this? I mean since the president is from the opposing party, wouldn't he just veto any bills the Democrats pass up trhough congress?

Cheers,
Stealthy

This is the way things were designed by the "founding fathers." They understood that, generally, federal government had the propensity to become self-aggrandizing and self-perpetuating, so to prevent undue haste in passing laws they set things up so that it required a 2/3 majority vote to override a presidential veto. Since we generally do not elect enough of a particular party to the legislature, it puts the president in a position to be a balance to congress passing laws too easily. This prevents "congressional momentum" as it were and usually keeps us from legislating stupid shit without someone being able to say, "Hey, wait just a damn minute." Do they always do that? No, but it's an option.

Regarding the general election status as it stands today, it is very much open for debate. The Democrat party forerunners (Hillary Rodham Clinton and Barack Hussein Obama) have only just this week gotten to the point where they had enough delegates pledged to vote for them in the primary election (where the parties choose their candidates to run in the general election) that we knew which one was going to be the Democrat candidate for president. This means that the "general" election campaign didn't really start until this week.

##### SCREED WARNING #####

As for the candidates specifically, you basically have the choice with the main two parties between blindfolded socialist dogma that isn't anything new and which has been proven a failure time and time again and a rickety conservative capitalism whose voter base has been seriously pissed on by the leaders who have been both A) far too accomodating of our media and B) far too afraid to stick to their conservative guns on policy. The interesting thing in all this is that you have a Democrat voter base who have been generally pissed off since Bubba left office and a Republican voter base who have become completely disgruntled with the Republican "leadership" that can't seem to decide whether they want to enact policies that piss off the mainstream media or their own voters. Two voting blocs that are pissed at Washington should make for some interesting fireworks over the next several months.

I have no idea how things will go yet, though I think McCain will end up the Republican candidate unless his health spontaneously combusts. Not that this would be a bad thing, IMO. Which means you're gonna have a lot of Republicans pulling levers in November for someone they really do not want to elect but feel they have to in order to prevent the complete destruction of the US economy via trillions of dollars in new health care and global warming (aka "nanny state") initiatives.

Then you'll have the Democrats pulling levers for whoever has a "D" next to their name because they feel they have to in order to prevent the Republicans from blocking legislation that will save the planet and millions of species that are at the brink of extinction due to oil company profits and tax cuts for the rich and Johnny deserves a lollipop too because he's a minority and can't fend for himself in this evil white-owned nation and omg did you see how Bush killed all the spotted owls in California to make room for his buddy oil-millionaire's new gameroom and America is too uppity and needs to be knocked down a peg and like dudes need healthcare too, brah.

[kYLa21]

During Obama�s speech in Pollclash The word "change" is just a word. Either candidate would constitute a change. For example we are all part in our families, yet we all do not have share the same beliefs nor are we identically same. McCain was a democrat not so long ago. Another great example is when we need someone with true experience due we reach out for someone whom we know nothing about or how they work? We should want the best experienced person to do the job.

[pinotnoir]

I am looking forward to another Democrat President. Sometimes you have to wonder what it would have been like if Gore won instead of Bush. I think too many people forgot about the bs that got Bush elected.

[�eceased]

[quote='Ughmahedhurtz',index.php?page=Thread&postID =72216#post72216]I have no idea how things will go yet, though I think McCain will end up the Republican candidate unless his health spontaneously combusts. Not that this would be a bad thing, IMO. Which means you're gonna have a lot of Republicans pulling levers in November for someone they really do not want to elect but feel they have to in order to prevent the complete destruction of the US economy via trillions of dollars in new health care and global warming (aka "nanny state") initiatives.

Then you'll have the Democrats pulling levers for whoever has a "D" next to their name because they feel they have to in order to prevent the Republicans from blocking legislation that will save the planet and millions of species that are at the brink of extinction due to oil company profits and tax cuts for the rich and Johnny deserves a lollipop too because he's a minority and can't fend for himself in this evil white-owned nation and omg did you see how Bush killed all the spotted owls in California to make room for his buddy oil-millionaire's new gameroom and America is too uppity and needs to be knocked down a peg and like dudes need healthcare too, brah.[/quote]

I dunno dude :S historically the US economy has always faired better under a democratic president.

[url='http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/National_debt_by_U.S._presidential_terms']National Debt[/url] - Jobs Created - Unemployment

Although I do agree with you to a certain extent. The Democrats are playing the green card too much IMO, and tbh that pisses me off quite a bit. I mean I understand the need for some policies regarding pollution and wildlife preservation, but when ppl talk about global warming :S. There is a much more credible correlation to global temperatures when referenced against sun spot activity
To clarify.. Anti pollution = good in general - anti global warming = urgh
To me it just seems like a waste of money trying to prove or disprove global warming, when logic suggests that money would be much better spent acctually reducing emissions, researching sustainable and renewable fuels etc not because it would reduce global warming, but because it would greatly improve and sustain peoples quality of life.

anyway, that aside for the mo, I don't see how the introduction of a healthcare system for everyone is a bad thing. Sure it may cost a lot of money, but in the long term, the economy will be generally more stable and grow at a much faster rate.
And it's not just down to the population being healthier and more able to work. It frees up disposable income that would otherwise be tied up in personal savings, encouraging consumer spending and thus further promotes growth. Or for those already in debt, it offers the chance to climb the employment market without having to worry about excessive costs to themselves or their families until they are able to pay etc.

I'm really sorry but I don't understand this general dislike of a publicly funded health care system. Is it purely monetarily disliked? but if only the richest people carry the cost, surely everyone else would love it.. no? or is there something else I haven't heard of, as I'm way over the other side of the Atlantic.

During Obama�s speech in Pollclash The word "change" is just a word. Either candidate would constitute a change. For example we are all part in our families, yet we all do not have share the same beliefs nor are we identically same. McCain was a democrat not so long ago. Another great example is when we need someone with true experience due we reach out for someone whom we know nothing about or how they work? We should want the best experienced person to do the job.

I have to say, out of all the Republican candidates, I am sooo pleased it's McCain that's running the show. I dunno why ^^

[Anozireth]

I have to say, out of all the Republican candidates, I am sooo pleased it's McCain that's running the show. I dunno why ^^

I'd definitely have to agree with that. But I know exactly why I agree. :P The other two that had a real chance at it were super religious types that would set forth ridiculous policies because "god told me to." The founders of this country clearly believed that religion had no place in politics, and for good reason. It is always unfortunate when politicians feel that they don't need to honor that.

I also have a great deal of respect for McCain's military service, even if I'm not sure I would always agree with his policies. I feel that he would always give very serious consideration to the consequences of military action, rather than thinking "we'll be greeted as liberators".

[-silencer-]

Hi All,

**NON MULTIBOXING TOPIC**

As someone living outside the US (Australia), and having a passing interest in the upcoming US presidential election, all the international media coverage I have seen so far has only covered Obama vs Clinton for the Democratic nomination. In fact I had to go to good old Wikepedia to find out who the republican candidate was (John McCain).

Since most of you live in the US, I though I would ask - is it the same there? I.e. is John McCain getting any press coverage at all? Does the upcoming election look to be shaping up as a close one? What are your thoughts on the two cadidates (Obama & McCain)

Just curious...

Cheers,
Stealthy

Ah, well there's good reason for that. One, it was a first on both sides to have a neck-and-neck running for both the first woman and first black Democratic nominee. Second, McCain had the Republican nomination basically locked up back in March, so we all knew where that party was headed. But most importantly, major media in the USA is managed and reported heavily by Democrat voters. When Democrats such as Bernard Goldberg come forth to state they should be more objective in their reporting of all news involving liberal (more Democrat) and conservative (more Republican) issues, he was basically blackballed from major media networks. His books, "Bias" and "Arrogance" explain how even as a liberal himself, he was surrounded by around 80% liberal coworkers and management, most of them oblivious to the fact that they report the media with a liberal slant.

As for my thoughts on the candidates, they both are atrocious for the future of this country, and here's why..
They both are leaders who *depend* on the support of their party. Both parties, Democrats and Republicans, are bad news for the future of this country, and it's proven by their actions of the last 30 years. They do NOT act in the best interests of the majority of the nation. They spend more time trying to keep their current registered Democrat and Republican voters based on certain social issues, that while are important, are NOT as important as the vision of the "American Dream" to the 200 million working middle class of the country. Both Democrats and Republicans have sold out this vast majority of people to line their own pockets - that's why we see scandals constantly in Washington, and that's only the ones we hear about. I'm not talking about sex scandals - I'm talking about bad deals and immoral laws that don't reflect the benefit of the majority of the people in the nation.

One of the most honest, and no bullshit, men in major media is Lou Dobbs. Read his book, "War on the Middle Class," and you'll see how both parties have continually screwed the country. From shoddy trade deals like NAFTA to broken social services like Medicare & Medicaid. The country runs on big businesses slipping cash to politicians

As someone who sees how the government actually works on various levels in day-to-day interactions in military contract software engineering, I'm adamantly against more federal involvement in our lives with government-run programs. People complain about the financial cost of the Iraq War, but our *entire* defense budget (the war, paying soldiers, paying benefits to retired soldiers, running military bases all over the world, building new and maintaining vehicles, ships, and aircraft, and paying contractors for military training simulations) is less than the cost of a failing Medicare program by $20-40 billion. That's how big the healthcare problem is in this country. Government run healthcare continues to fail, and making it universal is only going to accelerate the problem. For this reason, there's no way I could vote for Obama, even though I think of him a likeable and apparantly honorable person. His party is part of the problem, and this aren't going to suddenly change. Healthcare needs a whole new reform through legislation, but not another government run agency of excessive waste of funds. Unfortunately, yet another election is going to come down to the choice of the lesser of two evils, because both parties basically suck the majority of the nation dry.

I'm sure people will come to defend their party, and I used to be one of those people, but if you objectively look at the facts and laws enacted by both parties for the last 30 years, you'll see an overriding problem. The very poor continue to be poor even though they're promised a greater living by Democrats. The very rich continue to get richer by decisions from BOTH parties, even though Republicans tend to openly accept credit. The tax burden relative to disposable income continues to shift more heavily on families with incomes between $20,000 and $150,000.

Thomas Jefferson once said that as soon as the USA becomes a two-party system, we will no longer be run by the people, for the people, but rather by the government and the wealthy who run it for their own means. The country has been a two-party system for nearly 100 years, and we've really begun to see the drastically negative effects of it in the last 30 years. The smartest thing we can do as a people, is to drop your party affiliation and register as an Independent. Make the Democrat and Republican parties *earn* your vote by proving they can provide for your future by making honest decisions in Washington.

Unfortunately, hindsight is 20/20. The best chance this country had to begin to correct itself was in 1992 and 1996 when Perot was running for president. Go to http://perotcharts.com to see why. He's a man who truly has the best interests of the majority of American people in mind. Neither party will turn this country around. Their voting record on laws passed as proven that. It's going to take an outside force to undo the problems that have been building for decades. A rising independent party, a revolution, a rebellion.. who knows? But it won't be a Democrat, and it won't be a Republican. They're too tied down by party loyalty and corporate earnings.