|
|
United States2776 Posts
On November 08 2012 06:02 Risen wrote:Show nested quote +On November 08 2012 05:55 BluePanther wrote:On November 08 2012 05:51 Risen wrote:On November 08 2012 05:44 BluePanther wrote:BTW, some pretty big news that's been lagging behind. I had totally forgotten about this election. http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/world-us-canada-20238272The United States will have it's first Spanish speaking state. I don't think so. I think it's a coin flip. They just got rid of the governor who was FOR it in favor of one who's AGAINST statehood. The statehood vote WAS their vote for or against. Don't forget that we don't have to require their approval or anything. We own them. Literally. It's not as simple as that. They passed a non-binding referendum. Why aren't they a state now if the vote passed?
Because what they want doesn't matter in a legal sense. What congress wants is what matters.
However, both parties have publicly stated in the past that if PR decides they want to be a state, they'll be welcomed. If not, they'll be left alone. We've essentially offered them independence if they want it, but they're smart enough to know that's not nearly as good as being a state.
|
On November 08 2012 05:59 JinDesu wrote:Show nested quote +On November 08 2012 05:55 TheTenthDoc wrote:On November 08 2012 05:51 Klondikebar wrote:On November 08 2012 05:38 TheTenthDoc wrote:On November 08 2012 05:33 BluePanther wrote:On November 08 2012 05:23 xDaunt wrote:
The obvious question to ask is where does the republican party go from here. Open division between moderate and conservative republicans is on the way. Each have arguments to make regarding who is to blame for this debacle. Each is also at least partially right. I’m not really prepared to comment any further on what republicans need to do to right the ship. I think that it is going to take some time to digest. I'll be blunt: the moderates are the ones truly in charge. They are the ones that steer the boat. They've been steering to the conservatives for a while now since it gets the votes, but it seems they are doing more harm than help as of late. It's time we steer it in a different direction and let them flounder in the water if they don't like it. It's not like they're going to vote for a Democrat anyways. The fact that Ryan is still the post-boy of choice for the pundits that have been leading the GOP faithful for a while gives me little hope of this. He's actually very electable with some tweaks. He's very frank about his intentions and plans which is refreshing for a politician, and it really doesn't hurt that he's kinda hot. He obviously needs to move towards the center quite a distance but he's a politician, they're positions are more malleable than any other on the planet. It will be easy peasy to get him to talk like a moderate. The hard stuff life how he speaks and how he looks is done. He's pretty much the male version of Palin. He'll never be electable. I don't think he's so bad. I think his image and voice has been tainted by the requirement of supporting Romney There's been reports where he just doesn't want to run along with the Romney-train anymore even before the election.
It's not the association with Romney that's gonna taint Ryan. It's the fact that he was more of a drag on the ticket than an actual boost: Romney suddenly became competitive when he steered hard middle in the first debate, and from that point on, Ryan became a liability. McCain made the exact same mistake: picking up a ideological puritan to fire up the base, while simultaneously scaring away moderate voters.
Ryan gave Obama the opportunity to run against his 'budget' and bringing social security more prominently into the discussion (Florida), while bringing nothing to the table himself. The GOP is going to have to realize this, or they're gonna be buried even more in the 2016 election. This election pretty much proves that the Bush coalition is dead and will never defeat a democratic candidate with a good turn-out game.
|
United States43232 Posts
On November 08 2012 06:05 Souma wrote:Show nested quote +On November 08 2012 05:53 KwarK wrote:
One thing to note regarding parties in the US compared to parties in the UK is how little control they have over their politicians. In the UK we have one elected house and although we have a constituency system for electing them our Members of Parliament are elected on the basis of their party platform. The leader of the party has the power to form his cabinet and dismiss MPs from his cabinet at whim, as long as he retains the confidence of the house he can do what he likes as PM. He also has the power as party leader to remove anyone he likes from his party. While he cannot deselect an elected MP from their position as an MP he can refuse to allow them to stand as a member for his party at the next election (overruling the local party if needed) which will almost always result in their losing their job. Until the next election he can force them to remain on the back benches where they still have a vote but cannot influence policy. Furthermore as leader of the party he can dismiss party officials (chairman, treasurer etc) who fuck up.
What this means is that it is a much more tightly run organisation which can represent a brand or a set of ideals without constantly being undermined. The party structure in the US gives considerably less power to the leader, both in terms of his constitutional powers to control the elected representatives and in his extra-constitutional powers to do what he likes with his own party. It's damaging to the brand. I actually prefer the U.S. in this regard. The freedom to vote against your party without fear of major backlash is important. We elect our representatives to represent us, specifically, and not their parties. Of course, the two would be more closely intertwined if it were not for our two-party system.
It depends how it's used. A lot of how our politics works is dictated by tradition rather than by the specific rules. There are areas in which a vote can be considered a vote of conscience and using the party whip is frowned upon and areas where you really ought to follow the party line, such as on legislation that is the result of manifesto promises. But it does give the party a way to protect itself from Todd Akin style comments which stuck to the party despite not being representative of it.
|
The political solvency of Paul Ryan in the coming days will be a very good means of ascertaining whether or not the Republican Party is making "the right moves", so to speak. He represents a brand of neoliberal conservative politics that, in my personal estimation, weakened Republican voter turnout and strengthened Democratic turnout. To turn away from Paul Ryan is to turn towards the moderate Republican base that the GOP ticket needed so desperately this cycle.
|
2nd Worst City in CA8938 Posts
On November 08 2012 06:10 KwarK wrote:Show nested quote +On November 08 2012 06:05 Souma wrote:On November 08 2012 05:53 KwarK wrote:
One thing to note regarding parties in the US compared to parties in the UK is how little control they have over their politicians. In the UK we have one elected house and although we have a constituency system for electing them our Members of Parliament are elected on the basis of their party platform. The leader of the party has the power to form his cabinet and dismiss MPs from his cabinet at whim, as long as he retains the confidence of the house he can do what he likes as PM. He also has the power as party leader to remove anyone he likes from his party. While he cannot deselect an elected MP from their position as an MP he can refuse to allow them to stand as a member for his party at the next election (overruling the local party if needed) which will almost always result in their losing their job. Until the next election he can force them to remain on the back benches where they still have a vote but cannot influence policy. Furthermore as leader of the party he can dismiss party officials (chairman, treasurer etc) who fuck up.
What this means is that it is a much more tightly run organisation which can represent a brand or a set of ideals without constantly being undermined. The party structure in the US gives considerably less power to the leader, both in terms of his constitutional powers to control the elected representatives and in his extra-constitutional powers to do what he likes with his own party. It's damaging to the brand. I actually prefer the U.S. in this regard. The freedom to vote against your party without fear of major backlash is important. We elect our representatives to represent us, specifically, and not their parties. Of course, the two would be more closely intertwined if it were not for our two-party system. It depends how it's used. A lot of how our politics works is dictated by tradition rather than by the specific rules. There are areas in which a vote can be considered a vote of conscience and using the party whip is frowned upon and areas where you really ought to follow the party line, such as on legislation that is the result of manifesto promises. But it does give the party a way to protect itself from Todd Akin style comments which stuck to the party despite not being representative of it.
Well, in regards to Todd Akin-type crazies the party is able to drop their support for them and run candidates to oppose them if they really want to (in regards to Todd Akin, they should have and it's no fault but their own). Really, those sorts of blasphemous comments should have never stuck to the GOP but, fortunately for us, the GOP was too dumb to deal with it properly.
|
Cayman Islands24199 Posts
if you have tighter party discipline, the two party system in the u.s. would restrict local issues and power. americans value their local political representation dearly.
compared to the uk the US is a bigger country with more regional/local political enclaves.
|
United States2776 Posts
On November 08 2012 06:18 Souma wrote:Show nested quote +On November 08 2012 06:10 KwarK wrote:On November 08 2012 06:05 Souma wrote:On November 08 2012 05:53 KwarK wrote:
One thing to note regarding parties in the US compared to parties in the UK is how little control they have over their politicians. In the UK we have one elected house and although we have a constituency system for electing them our Members of Parliament are elected on the basis of their party platform. The leader of the party has the power to form his cabinet and dismiss MPs from his cabinet at whim, as long as he retains the confidence of the house he can do what he likes as PM. He also has the power as party leader to remove anyone he likes from his party. While he cannot deselect an elected MP from their position as an MP he can refuse to allow them to stand as a member for his party at the next election (overruling the local party if needed) which will almost always result in their losing their job. Until the next election he can force them to remain on the back benches where they still have a vote but cannot influence policy. Furthermore as leader of the party he can dismiss party officials (chairman, treasurer etc) who fuck up.
What this means is that it is a much more tightly run organisation which can represent a brand or a set of ideals without constantly being undermined. The party structure in the US gives considerably less power to the leader, both in terms of his constitutional powers to control the elected representatives and in his extra-constitutional powers to do what he likes with his own party. It's damaging to the brand. I actually prefer the U.S. in this regard. The freedom to vote against your party without fear of major backlash is important. We elect our representatives to represent us, specifically, and not their parties. Of course, the two would be more closely intertwined if it were not for our two-party system. It depends how it's used. A lot of how our politics works is dictated by tradition rather than by the specific rules. There are areas in which a vote can be considered a vote of conscience and using the party whip is frowned upon and areas where you really ought to follow the party line, such as on legislation that is the result of manifesto promises. But it does give the party a way to protect itself from Todd Akin style comments which stuck to the party despite not being representative of it. Well, in regards to Todd Akin-type crazies the party is able to drop their support for them and run candidates to oppose them if they really want to (in regards to Todd Akin, they should have and it's no fault but their own). Really, those sorts of blasphemous comments should have never stuck to the GOP but, fortunately for us, the GOP was too dumb to deal with it properly.
With Todd Akin it was somewhat infeasible since it was too late. It would have had to been a write-in campaign, and those are nearly impossible. The only way the Party could get a new name on the ballot was if he had resigned in that first week after it happened.
|
This sounds promising... hopefully not just hot air.
House Speaker John Boehner offered Wednesday to pursue a deal with a victorious President Barack Obama that will include higher taxes "under the right conditions" to help reduce the nation's staggering debt and put its finances in order.
"Mr. President, this is your moment," Boehner told reporters, speaking about the "fiscal cliff" that will hit in January. "We want you to lead."
Boehner said House Republicans are asking Obama "to make good on a balanced approach" that would including spending cuts and address government social benefit programs.
"Let's find the common ground that has eluded us," Boehner said while congratulating the president on winning a second term.
link
|
On November 08 2012 06:09 BluePanther wrote:Show nested quote +On November 08 2012 06:02 Risen wrote:On November 08 2012 05:55 BluePanther wrote:On November 08 2012 05:51 Risen wrote:On November 08 2012 05:44 BluePanther wrote:BTW, some pretty big news that's been lagging behind. I had totally forgotten about this election. http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/world-us-canada-20238272The United States will have it's first Spanish speaking state. I don't think so. I think it's a coin flip. They just got rid of the governor who was FOR it in favor of one who's AGAINST statehood. The statehood vote WAS their vote for or against. Don't forget that we don't have to require their approval or anything. We own them. Literally. It's not as simple as that. They passed a non-binding referendum. Why aren't they a state now if the vote passed? Because what they want doesn't matter in a legal sense. What congress wants is what matters. However, both parties have publicly stated in the past that if PR decides they want to be a state, they'll be welcomed. If not, they'll be left alone. We've essentially offered them independence if they want it, but they're smart enough to know that's not nearly as good as being a state.
I'm aware of this. Congress will pass it simply b/c whichever party says no can say goodbye to Florida. I'm still telling you it's not as simple as, they passed their vote they're going to be a state now.
|
2nd Worst City in CA8938 Posts
On November 08 2012 06:23 BluePanther wrote:Show nested quote +On November 08 2012 06:18 Souma wrote:On November 08 2012 06:10 KwarK wrote:On November 08 2012 06:05 Souma wrote:On November 08 2012 05:53 KwarK wrote:
One thing to note regarding parties in the US compared to parties in the UK is how little control they have over their politicians. In the UK we have one elected house and although we have a constituency system for electing them our Members of Parliament are elected on the basis of their party platform. The leader of the party has the power to form his cabinet and dismiss MPs from his cabinet at whim, as long as he retains the confidence of the house he can do what he likes as PM. He also has the power as party leader to remove anyone he likes from his party. While he cannot deselect an elected MP from their position as an MP he can refuse to allow them to stand as a member for his party at the next election (overruling the local party if needed) which will almost always result in their losing their job. Until the next election he can force them to remain on the back benches where they still have a vote but cannot influence policy. Furthermore as leader of the party he can dismiss party officials (chairman, treasurer etc) who fuck up.
What this means is that it is a much more tightly run organisation which can represent a brand or a set of ideals without constantly being undermined. The party structure in the US gives considerably less power to the leader, both in terms of his constitutional powers to control the elected representatives and in his extra-constitutional powers to do what he likes with his own party. It's damaging to the brand. I actually prefer the U.S. in this regard. The freedom to vote against your party without fear of major backlash is important. We elect our representatives to represent us, specifically, and not their parties. Of course, the two would be more closely intertwined if it were not for our two-party system. It depends how it's used. A lot of how our politics works is dictated by tradition rather than by the specific rules. There are areas in which a vote can be considered a vote of conscience and using the party whip is frowned upon and areas where you really ought to follow the party line, such as on legislation that is the result of manifesto promises. But it does give the party a way to protect itself from Todd Akin style comments which stuck to the party despite not being representative of it. Well, in regards to Todd Akin-type crazies the party is able to drop their support for them and run candidates to oppose them if they really want to (in regards to Todd Akin, they should have and it's no fault but their own). Really, those sorts of blasphemous comments should have never stuck to the GOP but, fortunately for us, the GOP was too dumb to deal with it properly. With Todd Akin it was somewhat infeasible since it was too late. It would have had to been a write-in campaign, and those are nearly impossible. The only way the Party could get a new name on the ballot was if he had resigned in that first week after it happened.
They should have done it with or without his resignation. There was no excuse to stick your support with him from that point on. This is why I said it was fortunate for us that the GOP was unable to deal with it properly. If they make excuses like that, the labels will forever stick.
|
United States3990 Posts
On November 08 2012 06:24 JonnyBNoHo wrote:This sounds promising... hopefully not just hot air. Show nested quote +
House Speaker John Boehner offered Wednesday to pursue a deal with a victorious President Barack Obama that will include higher taxes "under the right conditions" to help reduce the nation's staggering debt and put its finances in order.
"Mr. President, this is your moment," Boehner told reporters, speaking about the "fiscal cliff" that will hit in January. "We want you to lead."
Boehner said House Republicans are asking Obama "to make good on a balanced approach" that would including spending cuts and address government social benefit programs.
"Let's find the common ground that has eluded us," Boehner said while congratulating the president on winning a second term.
link
YES PLEASE
I hope it's truthful words from Boehner..
|
On November 08 2012 06:24 JonnyBNoHo wrote:This sounds promising... hopefully not just hot air. Show nested quote +
House Speaker John Boehner offered Wednesday to pursue a deal with a victorious President Barack Obama that will include higher taxes "under the right conditions" to help reduce the nation's staggering debt and put its finances in order.
"Mr. President, this is your moment," Boehner told reporters, speaking about the "fiscal cliff" that will hit in January. "We want you to lead."
Boehner said House Republicans are asking Obama "to make good on a balanced approach" that would including spending cuts and address government social benefit programs.
"Let's find the common ground that has eluded us," Boehner said while congratulating the president on winning a second term.
link
Based purely on surface level appraisal, this bodes well for bipartisanship in the coming days. Boehner's message contrasts strongly with McConnell's; it is now a question of who gets to steer the ship.
|
2nd Worst City in CA8938 Posts
If I were Obama I wouldn't raise tax rates, I'd just make tax-deductions progressive. Seems pretty common sense to me.
|
On November 08 2012 06:24 JonnyBNoHo wrote:This sounds promising... hopefully not just hot air. Show nested quote +
House Speaker John Boehner offered Wednesday to pursue a deal with a victorious President Barack Obama that will include higher taxes "under the right conditions" to help reduce the nation's staggering debt and put its finances in order.
"Mr. President, this is your moment," Boehner told reporters, speaking about the "fiscal cliff" that will hit in January. "We want you to lead."
Boehner said House Republicans are asking Obama "to make good on a balanced approach" that would including spending cuts and address government social benefit programs.
"Let's find the common ground that has eluded us," Boehner said while congratulating the president on winning a second term.
link
Lets hope the Dems can agree to some serious spending cuts, or the Republicans in the house will go feral.
|
On November 08 2012 06:26 JinDesu wrote:Show nested quote +On November 08 2012 06:24 JonnyBNoHo wrote:This sounds promising... hopefully not just hot air.
House Speaker John Boehner offered Wednesday to pursue a deal with a victorious President Barack Obama that will include higher taxes "under the right conditions" to help reduce the nation's staggering debt and put its finances in order.
"Mr. President, this is your moment," Boehner told reporters, speaking about the "fiscal cliff" that will hit in January. "We want you to lead."
Boehner said House Republicans are asking Obama "to make good on a balanced approach" that would including spending cuts and address government social benefit programs.
"Let's find the common ground that has eluded us," Boehner said while congratulating the president on winning a second term.
link YES PLEASE I hope it's truthful words from Boehner..
Frankly i never liked the republican party post Rockefeller republicans, with their dropping of states rights in favor of the religious right and i esp disliked their obstruction based games over the past several years, if you truly believe your idea's are correct let the other side do it's thing and fail. Once that happens your hands are clean and your message very presentable.
On November 08 2012 05:49 heliusx wrote:A republican congress is likely to be an obstacle imo.
I'm surprised Puerto Rico finally did this, there are benefits to their current position of territory and not state that they'd have to give up. I'm surprised one of those votes actually passed it's been pretty split between statehood and independence for awhile now.
Personally as a US citizen i wouldn't mind it if Puerto Rico was allowed into the union but I can't fully grasp all the changes they would go under to be fully a state of the union. I do wish the vote margin was bigger but it's acceptable.
I really wouldn't mind if the USA, mexico and canada went out and tried to form a new united states, but such big changes are a dream scape but would bring considerably more economic power securing up the region, it also give a chance to change the political land scape and laws that has bogged down the US at times. Ofc mexico has alot more corruption issues but shares a similar political land scape to the US and canada, and canada is parliamentary so it wouldn't mesh well.
|
On November 08 2012 06:28 Souma wrote:
If I were Obama I wouldn't raise tax rates, I'd just make tax-deductions progressive. Seems pretty common sense to me.
That would be raising taxes, wouldn't it?
|
2nd Worst City in CA8938 Posts
On November 08 2012 06:33 jdseemoreglass wrote:Show nested quote +On November 08 2012 06:28 Souma wrote:
If I were Obama I wouldn't raise tax rates, I'd just make tax-deductions progressive. Seems pretty common sense to me. That would be raising taxes, wouldn't it?
I said I wouldn't raise tax rates! I'd still raise tax revenue. =)
|
On November 08 2012 06:30 ControlMonkey wrote:Show nested quote +On November 08 2012 06:24 JonnyBNoHo wrote:This sounds promising... hopefully not just hot air.
House Speaker John Boehner offered Wednesday to pursue a deal with a victorious President Barack Obama that will include higher taxes "under the right conditions" to help reduce the nation's staggering debt and put its finances in order.
"Mr. President, this is your moment," Boehner told reporters, speaking about the "fiscal cliff" that will hit in January. "We want you to lead."
Boehner said House Republicans are asking Obama "to make good on a balanced approach" that would including spending cuts and address government social benefit programs.
"Let's find the common ground that has eluded us," Boehner said while congratulating the president on winning a second term.
link Lets hope the Dems can agree to some serious spending cuts, or the Republicans in the house will go feral.
Government spending historically have been the most effective economy stimulant, since it directly inject money into circulation. Problem is with all the debt it's pretty handcuffed...
|
On November 08 2012 06:34 Souma wrote:Show nested quote +On November 08 2012 06:33 jdseemoreglass wrote:On November 08 2012 06:28 Souma wrote:
If I were Obama I wouldn't raise tax rates, I'd just make tax-deductions progressive. Seems pretty common sense to me. That would be raising taxes, wouldn't it? I said I wouldn't raise tax rates! I'd still raise tax revenue. =)
Meh, it would be better to eliminate deductions altogether and institute a negative income tax.
|
2nd Worst City in CA8938 Posts
On November 08 2012 06:42 jdseemoreglass wrote:Show nested quote +On November 08 2012 06:34 Souma wrote:On November 08 2012 06:33 jdseemoreglass wrote:On November 08 2012 06:28 Souma wrote:
If I were Obama I wouldn't raise tax rates, I'd just make tax-deductions progressive. Seems pretty common sense to me. That would be raising taxes, wouldn't it? I said I wouldn't raise tax rates! I'd still raise tax revenue. =) Meh, it would be better to eliminate deductions altogether and institute a negative income tax.
I don't know about that. I'm not sure how a negative income tax would fit within our current society/system in the grand scheme of things. You should tell me its pros/cons though! I'm all ears.
|
|
|
|
|
|
EPT
