Why would electing a new President change anything?

Like, I keep saying this isn't about the leaders, this about how we fail to make the congressmen liable. Are you so naive that you think that just because there is an election everything is right and fair, and that we can just elect out the congressmen. To put its simply its not. We the people need to fight to make sure the congressmen are doing what we want, we can't be complacent.pl4yer_f0und

I'm not naive. We threw out congressmen once before. It happened a little more than a year ago. Republicans OVERWHELMINGLY took back the House, and came pretty close to taking back the senate. I have much more faith in our political system than you do, it seems.

In my humble opinion Congress needs to undergo drastic changes.

My thoughts:

1) Limit the amount of spending a candidate can spend on advertising, becoming a Congressman requires too high of a price tag for anyone under a certain income level to do, and the problem only becomes worse when you try to challenge a long standing Congressman who has millions to throw in advertising.

2) Switch to a system where seats in the House are delegated based upon the number of votes and allow multiple parties. The Senate would remain the same esentially. Green Party gets 1% of the vote? They get 1% of the seats in the House, Republicans get 39% of the votes? They get 39% of the seats. This would allow for minority parties to still achieve some input and representation in the Congress and with multiple parties, more compromise must be achieve in order to hold a majority in the House.

3) Require Congressmen to vote for bills. This one seems odd but frequently the whole House will not be present to vote on issues, and this is very wrong. You were elected to vote on issues you should be required to do it or face step fines, and if you commit the act too many times a ban from running in the next election.

[QUOTE="worlock77"]

I'm sorry, but that is just laughable. Bush II (who for most of his tenure held a majority in both houses of the Congress), for example, increased the deficit by more than any president since FDR.

airshocker

Which isn't very shocking considering we were in two wars.

Was there a reason for those Wars? A small military retaliation with Afgahnistan sure, but the War has been going on for what eight or nine years now? What are we still doing over there? Iraq was completely unnecessary in my opinion.

Was there a reason for those Wars? A small military retaliation with Afgahnistan sure, but the War has been going on for what eight or nine years now? What are we still doing over there? Iraq was completely unnecessary in my opinion.

DarkGamer007

Far too tired to have a discussion on the wars at the moment. Suffice to say, yes there were reasons for them. My point was not an attempt to get into a discussion of the wars, merely a statement of fact.

[QUOTE="nocoolnamejim"]

[QUOTE="airshocker"]

I don't WANT compromise. I don't WANT Obama's policies. I want Republicans in power, and Republican policies.

I can't support, or even feel sorry for, a President who doesn't approve of something as worthy as a oil pipeline from Canada.

pl4yer_f0und

Ironically enough, I agree with parts of this post.

Compromise is not the solution at this point in time. The last two years have been a waste. You've had a Republican majority in the House unwilling to do anything that is not (in my opinion) rightwing extremism. You've had a Senate powerless to act in the face of a Republican filliubuster.

Essentially if the country wants real progress, in EITHER direction, it needs to definitively state a preference.

Republican House, Fillibuster Proof Senate, and President or Democratic House, Fillibuster Proof Senate and President.

There's a real benefit for divided government if you're ending up with moderates dictating policy. My take is that we have one completely extremist party in this country (Republicans) and one that's got both moderates and liberals (Democrats). I would argue for empowering the Democrats. We'll see what the election does.

My guess is we end up with a divided country yet again and more gridlock.

Sometimes compromise leads to an incorrect outcome.

There are areas in policy where a compromise can lead to an acceptable middle ground. There are also areas where compromise just leads to something that leaves everyone worse off than if one side got their way entirely.

Numerical example:

One person tells you that 2+2=4

Another person says that the first person's utterly wrong and 2+2=6.

Is the correct answer to split the difference and agree that 2+2=5?

A more real world example. One party in the United States does not believe, as a whole, that climate change exists or should be addressed AT ALL. (Republicans.) They basically say that it's a bunch of leftwing propaganda, The other side believes it exists but have intraparty differences of how much weight to give to that vs. how much U.S. economic differences should overweigh it. (Democrats.)

There's not much of a middle ground here between "Climate Change is science ficiton and/or Liberal Propaganda" vs. "Climate Change is real and we need to figure out how to address it."

You're either on one side of that fence or the other. Republicans might say there's no middle ground on the subject of abortion.

On some issues, you can split the difference. On others you're just kicking the can down the road and delaying a resolution.

[QUOTE="worlock77"]

I'm sorry, but that is just laughable. Bush II (who for most of his tenure held a majority in both houses of the Congress), for example, increased the deficit by more than any president since FDR.

airshocker

Which isn't very shocking considering we were in two wars.

Two utterly unnecessary wars. Not to mention that during the same period he chose to reduce taxes. Reducing income while drastically increasing spending isn't really good fiscal policy. It'd be about like me quitting my job and then going out and buying new furnature for every room in my house and taking out a loan to pay for it. It's your vote and if you want to use it on Republicans that's fine, just don't kid yourself into thinking they're conservative.

Two utterly unnecessary wars. Not to mention that during the same period he chose to reduce taxes. Reducing income while drastically increasing spending isn't really good fiscal policy. It'd be about like me quitting my job and then going out and buying new furnature for every room in my house and taking out a loan to pay for it. It's your vote and if you want to use it on Republicans that's fine, just don't kid yourself into thinking they're conservative.

worlock77

Won't argue with that.

[QUOTE="pl4yer_f0und"]The problem is not about republicans or democrats, its that congressmen are not taking action, they aren't compromising, they are not listening to the people, and they are basically trying to sabotage the president. This is not right, and people should be more aware of the congress than the elections because that is were the real problems are.airshocker

I don't WANT compromise. I don't WANT Obama's policies. I want Republicans in power, and Republican policies.

I can't support, or even feel sorry for, a President who doesn't approve of something as worthy as a oil pipeline from Canada.

How much do you know about the source of oil that pipeline connects to? It's one of the dirtiest sources of hydrocarbons on the planet, sitting pretty much right along with coal. There's also the fact that they wanted to run the pipeline over the Ogallala aquifer, and considering any pipelines propensity for forming leaks... that seems unwise to say the least.

You're obviously a conservative, and there's nothing wrong with that... but that pipeline represents an America that refuses to move forward. We're on the wrong side of the oil bell curve, shown obvious by peaking production and the willingness to use the most damaging, lowest net-energy of fossil reserves of hydrocarbons(shale and tar sands). I won't be pegged as a liberal or conservative, but I'm definitely more on the liberal spectrum considering I'm not religious, I don't believe in endless growth, and consider myself an advocate for a healthy planet. And whether you accept it or not, heavy non-conventional usage of tar sands and shale will be the end of a timid, relatively benign planet that supports abundant life.

How much do you know about the source of oil that pipeline connects to? It's one of the dirtiest sources of hydrocarbons on the planet, sitting pretty much right along with coal. There's also the fact that they wanted to run the pipeline over the Ogallala aquifer, and considering any pipelines propensity for forming leaks... that seems unwise to say the least.

You're obviously a conservative, and there's nothing wrong with that... but that pipeline represents an American that refuses to move forward. We're on the wrong side of the oil bell curve, shown obviously by peaking production and the willingness to use the most damaging, with the lowest net-energy of fossil reserves of hydrocarbons(shale and tar sands). I won't be pegged as a liberal or conservative, but I'm definitely more on the liberal spectrum considering I'm not religious, I don't believe in endless growth, and consider myself an advocate for a healthy planet. And whether you accept it or not, heavy non-conventional usage of tar sands and shale will be the end of a timid, relatively benign planet that supports abundant life.

Primevil702

We're not moving anywhere as it is. Growth is the only way to fund the things we want, and to keep a relatively high standard of living. Endless growth is very possible. We had grwoth for two decades, up until 2007. There's no reason we can't have it again, so long as we exploit the industries that will bring it.

[QUOTE="Primevil702"]

How much do you know about the source of oil that pipeline connects to? It's one of the dirtiest sources of hydrocarbons on the planet, sitting pretty much right along with coal. There's also the fact that they wanted to run the pipeline over the Ogallala aquifer, and considering any pipelines propensity for forming leaks... that seems unwise to say the least.

You're obviously a conservative, and there's nothing wrong with that... but that pipeline represents an American that refuses to move forward. We're on the wrong side of the oil bell curve, shown obviously by peaking production and the willingness to use the most damaging, with the lowest net-energy of fossil reserves of hydrocarbons(shale and tar sands). I won't be pegged as a liberal or conservative, but I'm definitely more on the liberal spectrum considering I'm not religious, I don't believe in endless growth, and consider myself an advocate for a healthy planet. And whether you accept it or not, heavy non-conventional usage of tar sands and shale will be the end of a timid, relatively benign planet that supports abundant life.

airshocker

We're not moving anywhere as it is. Growth is the only way to fund the things we want, and to keep a relatively high standard of living. Endless growth is very possible. We had grwoth for two decades, up until 2007. There's no reason we can't have it again, so long as we exploit the industries that will bring it.

Endless growth is certainly not possible unless we begin to support new industries to bring that growth. Environmental concerns aside the fact is that oil is not an unlimited resource. We're going to run out. The sooner we develop alternates to it the better.

[QUOTE="worlock77"]

The Republicans are not conservatives and haven't been in decades.

airshocker

They're close enough.

Endless growth is certainly not possible unless we begin to support new industries to bring that growth. Environmental concerns aside the fact is that oil is not an unlimited resource. We're going to run out. The sooner we develop alternates to it the better.

worlock77

Yet that doesn't mean we should abandon the oil reserves we do have. All I see from liberals is a desire to solely use green energy which simply isn't viable right now.

That made me chuckle. Most of the Republican party are (economically) conservative in name only (I know worlock already more or less said this but I'm just emphasizing the point :P).

chessmaster1989

Still better than democrats, by leaps and bounds. :P

Endless growth is certainly not possible unless we begin to support new industries to bring that growth. Environmental concerns aside the fact is that oil is not an unlimited resource. We're going to run out. The sooner we develop alternates to it the better.

worlock77

It really seems unbelievable that people believe growth in perpetuity is reasonable. The growth of human knowledge has limits only marked by our own abilities and longevity, but the growth of a physical sort has definite, mostly well-defined limits. Considering earth will be our only home for at least sometime into the foreseeable future - should we not make preparations to live in a more sustainable fashion?

We're so completely unprepared it's frightening, our infrastructure is utterly dependent on a resources that going to become scarcer by the decade. And we need decades to make the transitions necessary. And what's worse, how many of the candidates running have even mentioned topics along these lines? Heck, some of them want to elimate the EPA! We're in serious trouble if we can't even collectively admit we have a huge national, and global challenge ahead.

It really seems unbelievable that people believe growth in perpetuity is reasonable. The growth of human knowledge has limits only marked by our own abilities and longevity, but the growth of a physical sort has definite, mostly well-defined limits. Considering earth will be our only home for at least sometime into the foreseeable future - should we not make preparations to live in a more sustainable fashion?

We're so completely unprepared it's frightening, our infrastructure is utterly dependent on a resources that going to become scarcer by the decade. And we need decades to make the transitions necessary. And what's worse, how many of the candidates running have even mentioned topics along these lines? Heck, some of them want to elimate the EPA! We're in serious trouble if we can't even collectively admit we have a huge national, and global challenge ahead.

Primevil702

The fact of the matter is, what people like you advocate will hurt the average person. People aren't willing to go through that. I, for one, see no need to hurt anybody. A steady R&D focus on clean, renewable energy while also using the oil reserves that we do have will prepare us for the future. I see no reason to be extreme on either side of this. Maybe if liberals started with this, more people would get on board.

[QUOTE="worlock77"]

Endless growth is certainly not possible unless we begin to support new industries to bring that growth. Environmental concerns aside the fact is that oil is not an unlimited resource. We're going to run out. The sooner we develop alternates to it the better.

airshocker

Yet that doesn't mean we should abandon the oil reserves we do have. All I see from liberals is a desire to solely use green energy which simply isn't viable right now.

You're absolutely correct. How much further should we kick the can down the road? The "Limits to Growth" was released in what? The 70's!? And where are we now - we're just that much deeper in a hole of our own making. To most rational pro-environment people, green constitutes nuclear, solar, geo-thermal, efficiency increases and everything else in the tool-box. I wouldn't be so opposed to the Tar-Sands if it wasn't just going to be another fix for our oil addiction, another reason to do less on alternatives... and allowing ourselves to sink further into the infrastructure hole.

[QUOTE="pl4yer_f0und"][QUOTE="nocoolnamejim"]

Ironically enough, I agree with parts of this post.

Compromise is not the solution at this point in time. The last two years have been a waste. You've had a Republican majority in the House unwilling to do anything that is not (in my opinion) rightwing extremism. You've had a Senate powerless to act in the face of a Republican filliubuster.

Essentially if the country wants real progress, in EITHER direction, it needs to definitively state a preference.

Republican House, Fillibuster Proof Senate, and President or Democratic House, Fillibuster Proof Senate and President.

There's a real benefit for divided government if you're ending up with moderates dictating policy. My take is that we have one completely extremist party in this country (Republicans) and one that's got both moderates and liberals (Democrats). I would argue for empowering the Democrats. We'll see what the election does.

My guess is we end up with a divided country yet again and more gridlock.

nocoolnamejim

Sometimes compromise leads to an incorrect outcome.

There are areas in policy where a compromise can lead to an acceptable middle ground. There are also areas where compromise just leads to something that leaves everyone worse off than if one side got their way entirely.

Numerical example:

One person tells you that 2+2=4

Another person says that the first person's utterly wrong and 2+2=6.

Is the correct answer to split the difference and agree that 2+2=5?

A more real world example. One party in the United States does not believe, as a whole, that climate change exists or should be addressed AT ALL. (Republicans.) They basically say that it's a bunch of leftwing propaganda, The other side believes it exists but have intraparty differences of how much weight to give to that vs. how much U.S. economic differences should overweigh it. (Democrats.)

There's not much of a middle ground here between "Climate Change is science ficiton and/or Liberal Propaganda" vs. "Climate Change is real and we need to figure out how to address it."

You're either on one side of that fence or the other. Republicans might say there's no middle ground on the subject of abortion.

On some issues, you can split the difference. On others you're just kicking the can down the road and delaying a resolution.

[QUOTE="worlock77"]

Endless growth is certainly not possible unless we begin to support new industries to bring that growth. Environmental concerns aside the fact is that oil is not an unlimited resource. We're going to run out. The sooner we develop alternates to it the better.

airshocker

Yet that doesn't mean we should abandon the oil reserves we do have. All I see from liberals is a desire to solely use green energy which simply isn't viable right now.

I don't see anyone advocating simply dropping fossel fuels here and now and switching over to green energy.

You're absolutely correct. How much further should we kick the can down the road? The "Limits to Growth" was released in what? The 70's!? And where are we now - we're just that much deeper in a hole of our own making. To most rational pro-environment people, green constitutes nuclear, solar, geo-thermal, efficiency increases and everything else in the tool-box. I wouldn't be so opposed to the Tar-Sands if it wasn't just going to be another fix for our oil addiction, another reason to do less on alternatives... and allowing ourselves to sink further into the infrastructure hole.

Primevil702

I disagree with you, I see nothing from liberals, or pro-environmentalists, that indicate any kind of sense when it comes to our need for energy. All I see is the extreme: Oil is bad, stop drilling immediately, destroy our economy in an attempt to spur more green energy development, blah, blah, blah.

I don't see anyone advocating simply dropping fossel fuels here and now and switching over to green energy.

worlock77

I see it all the time in the resistance to exploiting our reserves. Shouldn't the time be now to develop those reserves in order to increase growth and revenue to the government so we can invest in green technology research without getting flak over it?

[QUOTE="pl4yer_f0und"]Like, I keep saying this isn't about the leaders, this about how we fail to make the congressmen liable. Are you so naive that you think that just because there is an election everything is right and fair, and that we can just elect out the congressmen. To put its simply its not. We the people need to fight to make sure the congressmen are doing what we want, we can't be complacent.airshocker

I'm not naive. We threw out congressmen once before. It happened a little more than a year ago. Republicans OVERWHELMINGLY took back the House, and came pretty close to taking back the senate. I have much more faith in our political system than you do, it seems.

And look at what we got out of that. A congress that can't even do something as simple as raise the debt ceiling. That's embarrassing, and I don't like being the laughing stock of the world. I say we peg the congressmen down a level, show them that they get their power through us, and not the other way aroundpl4yer_f0und

Better than having more policies that I disagree with from Obama.

[QUOTE="worlock77"]

I don't see anyone advocating simply dropping fossel fuels here and now and switching over to green energy.

airshocker

I see it all the time in the resistance to exploiting our reserves. Shouldn't the time be now to develop those reserves in order to increase growth and revenue to the government so we can invest in green technology research without getting flak over it?

Sure, but I think the oil-companies should pick up a large portion of that tab. Considering they're the largest, wealthiest of the enterprises in human history... and all that profit was derived from what belongs to everyone. They didn't own the oil they sold anymore than someone can own the air I breath. With that said, they do deserve to profit from the technology needed to extract and deliver the goods.

And another thing, we can't always return to the kneejerk reaction of "more growth" to solve our issues. If somethings broken, ya know, like an economic system that depends on unsustainable growth to function...we need to fix it. We obviously can't throw the baby out with the bathwater, but we need to understand what a near zero-growth economy might look like, and how we can get there. And zero-growth does not imply a halt to technological progress, it justs mean we can have an economic system that isn't utterly dependent on serving an ever expanding customer base.

[QUOTE="worlock77"]

I don't see anyone advocating simply dropping fossel fuels here and now and switching over to green energy.

airshocker

I see it all the time in the resistance to exploiting our reserves. Shouldn't the time be now to develop those reserves in order to increase growth and revenue to the government so we can invest in green technology research without getting flak over it?

So larger government now?

So larger government now?

worlock77

No. I was thinking more along the lines of grants to non-government entities. Maybe tasking the military as well.

Sure, but I think the oil-companies should pick up a large portion of that tab. Considering they're the largest, wealthiest of the enterprises in human history... and all that profit was derived from what belongs to everyone. They didn't own the oil they sold anymore than someone can own the air I breath. With that said, they do deserve to profit from the technology needed to extract and deliver the goods.

And another thing, we can't always return to the kneejerk reaction of "more growth" to solve our issues. If somethings broken, ya know, like an economic system that depends on unsustainable growth to function...we need to fix it. We obviously can't throw the baby out with the bathwater, but we need to understand what a near zero-growth economy might look like, and how we can get there. And zero-growth does not imply a halt to technological progress, it justs mean we can have an economic system that isn't utterly dependent on serving an ever expanding customer base.

Primevil702

No, to your entire first paragraph. Property doesn't work like that and I'm frankly not interested in the mindset of the resources belonging to everyone. We have a system of property ownership that works.

We don't want a near zero growth economy.

[QUOTE="worlock77"]

So larger government now?

airshocker

No. I was thinking more along the lines of grants to non-government entities. Maybe tasking the military as well.

Like with Solyndra?

[QUOTE="Primevil702"]

Sure, but I think the oil-companies should pick up a large portion of that tab. Considering they're the largest, wealthiest of the enterprises in human history... and all that profit was derived from what belongs to everyone. They didn't own the oil they sold anymore than someone can own the air I breath. With that said, they do deserve to profit from the technology needed to extract and deliver the goods.

And another thing, we can't always return to the kneejerk reaction of "more growth" to solve our issues. If somethings broken, ya know, like an economic system that depends on unsustainable growth to function...we need to fix it. We obviously can't throw the baby out with the bathwater, but we need to understand what a near zero-growth economy might look like, and how we can get there. And zero-growth does not imply a halt to technological progress, it justs mean we can have an economic system that isn't utterly dependent on serving an ever expanding customer base.

airshocker

No, to your entire first paragraph. Property doesn't work like that and I'm frankly not interested in the mindset of the resources belonging to everyone. We have a system of property ownership that works.

We don't want a near zero growth economy.

I'm not totally sure a new president would change much, except perhaps cut spending and try to reduce the deficit.

I'm a moderate Republican and I may vote for Obama if Newt Gingrich or one of the Tea Party candidates gets the GOP nomination. I'm dubious about Gingrich's integrity, I'm not a fan of his comments about low-income children, and I don't want the Tea Party running the country.

[QUOTE="airshocker"]

[QUOTE="pl4yer_f0und"]The problem is not about republicans or democrats, its that congressmen are not taking action, they aren't compromising, they are not listening to the people, and they are basically trying to sabotage the president. This is not right, and people should be more aware of the congress than the elections because that is were the real problems are.pl4yer_f0und

I don't WANT compromise. I don't WANT Obama's policies. I want Republicans in power, and Republican policies.

I can't support, or even feel sorry for, a President who doesn't approve of something as worthy as a oil pipeline from Canada.

not really, no. both dems and republicans are more or less slaves to the drug/arms/banks/ interests in washigton. There might be a guy who promises real change once in a while (kucinich or Paul) but the media will never let them get by.

No, it doesn't do much at all. Everything is a broken, everything is a mess, all the time. One guy can't do anything. It's going to take the cooperation of everyone to get it sorted out. The president alone can't do sh*t.

Congress does have a serious problem. It's hard to get anything done just by the nature of it.

Congress does have a serious problem. It's hard to get anything done just by the nature of it.

sonicare

How do you know they all get retirement benefits? I think it's silly to assume some freshman representative gets the same benefits as someone who has been a representative for 20 years.

Secondly, a new president is vital for a Republican controlled government. That's why we need a new President, and need to regain the majority in the Senate.

airshocker

I don't see us getting a new president anytime soon. I think I read something like 75% of presidents were reelected, and the ones who weren't lost because of something weird (like George Bush Sr. losing Republican votes to some other guy) or because they were undeniably terrible or some other reason.

not really, no. both dems and republicans are more or less slaves to the drug/arms/banks/ interests in washigton. There might be a guy who promises real change once in a while (kucinich or Paul) but the media will never let them get by.

BossPerson

If Paul and Kuchinich actually had some charisma and could appeal to anybody other than college kids fresh off their first readings of Ayn Rand or Noam Chomsky you'd see them in the media a lot more.

I don't see us getting a new president anytime soon. I think I read something like 75% of presidents were reelected, and the ones who weren't lost because of something weird (like George Bush Sr. losing Republican votes to some other guy) or because they were undeniably terrible or some other reason.

SPYDER0416

Ya we need a new congress, but you have to remember that the president can veto bills and such and Obama recently signed a bill that takes away our civil liberities and goes agains the Constitution (props to DroidPhysX for making a thread about it), also Obama keeps borrowing massive amounts of money. It really doesn't matter who wins, really. They are just going to do the same thing as the last idiot, overall Obama has just been another Bush administration and the next guy is going to keep the same act going.

Obama is infallible.

Obama is infallible.

sonicare

[QUOTE="sonicare"]

Obama is infallible.

surrealnumber5

[QUOTE="surrealnumber5"]

[QUOTE="sonicare"]

Obama is infallible.

Engrish_Major

I think that the variation between political candidates is insignificant, and though some politicians are better than others, the differences don't contribute much of anything in terms of effective government. Voting one way or the other has little to no effect in the larger picture of our government. To fix this voting would have to become more relevant to change the dynamics of what happens in congress.

Nothing will change in politics until a one term limit is instituted, along with completely removing money from the equation.

Nothing will change in politics until a one term limit is instituted, along with completely removing money from the equation.

789shadow

Nothing will change in politics until a one term limit is instituted, along with completely removing money from the equation.

789shadow

You can thank those damn liberals for not allowing term limits.

*shakes fist in the sky*

That is why I am in favor of kicking them all, White House and Congress, out.