-
<blockquote class="ipsBlockquote" data-author="Nepia" data-cid="507228" data-time="1439177121">
<div>
<p>I'm (genuinely) interested in what real change you're wanting/expecting in America?</p>
</div>
</blockquote>
<p> </p>
<p>I get what you are getting at, change is certainly not easy in the USA as jegga points out you have no legislative power - but you do control the public agenda to a large degree. The change I would like to see in American in no particular order; a far more healthier environment for political discussion, a long term path to reducing debt, lobbyist/fundraising reform including a significant reduction in the house and gun control. Providing a path to any of those is bloody difficult.</p>
<p> </p>
<p>I really think to deal with any issue of substance or to make any significant or memorable change though a candidate is going to have to abandon the idea of having a two term presidency. I truly don't understand the fixation with abandoning all ambition and policy in order to seek reelection - the incremental benefit seems incredibly low. Obviously, Obama had major hurdles with the house and senate that meant he couldn't exactly get his agenda through in exactly the way he wanted - however I don't think anyone could say he died on any hills during his presidency either.</p>
<p> </p>
<p>I will say that the next term could be very interesting given there are 4 supreme court justices 75+ (two democrat appointments, two republican) - so we could see an ideological shift depending on how that cookie crumbles. If a republican were to appoint more ideologues to replace all democrats and getting functional gun reform by overturning McDonald vs Chicago would be out the window.</p> -
<blockquote class="ipsBlockquote" data-author="rotated" data-cid="507394" data-time="1439220503">
<div>
<p>Obviously, Obama had major hurdles with the house and senate that meant he couldn't exactly get his agenda through in exactly the way he wanted - however I don't think anyone could say he died on any hills during his presidency either.</p>
</div>
</blockquote>
<p>It was nothing out of the ordinary. The Legislature often gets elected to stop the Presidents agenda - Pelosi, Gingrich, O'Neil etc. The tactics used by those previous Congresses are also comparable.</p>
<p> </p>
<p>Some Democrats like to pretend its not a co-equal branch (much like the Republicans did when they had the Presidency) but as a deep thinker on this subject once said 'elections have consequences'</p>
<p> </p>
<p> </p>
<p>It's also worth noting Obama had two years at the start of his Presidency where he could have done what he wanted</p> -
<blockquote class="ipsBlockquote" data-author="Duluth" data-cid="507414" data-time="1439240051">
<div>
<p>It was nothing out of the ordinary. The Legislature often gets elected to stop the Presidents agenda - Pelosi, Gingrich, O'Neil etc. The tactics used by those previous Congresses are also comparable.</p>
<p> </p>
<p>Some Democrats like to pretend its not a co-equal branch (much like the Republicans did when they had the Presidency) but as a deep thinker on this subject once said 'elections have consequences'</p>
<p> </p>
<p> </p>
<p><strong>It's also worth noting Obama had two years at the start of his Presidency where he could have done what he wanted</strong></p>
</div>
</blockquote>
<p> </p>
<p>Yeah, but if he went hard how much would have been overturned when he became a one-term president and a republican president replaced him. Kind of a strawman argument but it did seem like he was going gently, gently when his support and power to effect change was at its peak. Aside from gun control he has tangled with some huge policy changes though. Don't they call healthcare and insurance the 'third rail' of US politics? electrified!!</p> -
<blockquote class="ipsBlockquote" data-author="Duluth" data-cid="507414" data-time="1439240051">
<div>
<p>It was nothing out of the ordinary. The Legislature often gets elected to stop the Presidents agenda - Pelosi, Gingrich, O'Neil etc. The tactics used by those previous Congresses are also comparable.</p>
<p> </p>
<p>Some Democrats like to pretend its not a co-equal branch (much like the Republicans did when they had the Presidency) but as a deep thinker on this subject once said 'elections have consequences'</p>
<p> </p>
<p> </p>
<p>It's also worth noting Obama had two years at the start of his Presidency where he could have done what he wanted</p>
</div>
</blockquote>
<p> </p>
<p>I agree. I do think however the co-operation and rhetoric between the branches had devolved considerably since the Clinton administration. Those two years at the beginning of the administration also was the worst possible timing in regards to the GFC - very difficult to do a great deal of social reform when there was so much uncertainty in the electorate at that time.</p>
<p> </p>
<p>That said the Obama presidency was a luke-warm disappointment and I think he will reflect ruefully that he didn't go for broke in the first term.</p> -
<blockquote class="ipsBlockquote" data-author="rotated" data-cid="507421" data-time="1439244571">
<div>
<p>I agree. I do think however the co-operation and rhetoric between the branches had devolved considerably since the Clinton administration. </p>
</div>
</blockquote>
<p>Clinton was impeached and the government was shut on Reagan with incredible regularity. These battles are the same as they always were and the inertia was deliberately built into the system.</p>
<p> </p>
<p>There's a tendency for political commentators to claim the decisiveness has never been so bad. The problem is US political commentators were saying the same things 20, 30, 50 & 100 years ago. The only ones that were right were the guys that said it ~150 years ago</p> -
<blockquote class="ipsBlockquote" data-author="Duluth" data-cid="507425" data-time="1439245357">
<div>
<p>Clinton was impeached and the government was shut on Reagan with incredible regularity. These battles are the same as they always were and the inertia was deliberately built into the system.</p>
<p> </p>
<p>There's a tendency for political commentators to claim the decisiveness has never been so bad. The problem is US political commentators were saying the same things 20, 30, 50 & 100 years ago. The only ones that were right were the guys that said it ~150 years ago</p>
</div>
</blockquote>
<p> </p>
<p>I can see your point, but I think the electoral college was significantly more fluid we have seen once moderate states like Kentucky, Tenessee, Georgia and even Texas have gone progressively more and more off the reservation (Virginia in the opposite direction). If you look at Clinton vs Bush in 1992 a clash Clinton won with a 6% lead in the popular vote there were 17 states with a margin of under 5%. By Obama vs Romney where Obama prevailed with a 4% lead in the popular vote only 4 states had a margin of less than 5%, 17 were under 10%. Whereas 66% of the union was within a 10% in 1992.</p>
<p> </p>
<p>I don't see any catalyst bringing in any swing states outside the same set we have had since 2000/4.</p> -
<blockquote class="ipsBlockquote" data-author="rotated" data-cid="507394" data-time="1439220503">
<div>
<p><strong>I get what you are getting at,</strong> change is certainly not easy in the USA as jegga points out you have no legislative power - but you do control the public agenda to a large degree. <strong>The change I would like to see in American in no particular order; a far more healthier environment for political discussion, a long term path to reducing debt, lobbyist/fundraising reform including a significant reduction in the house and gun control. Providing a path to any of those is bloody difficult.</strong></p>
<p> </p>
<p>I really think to deal with any issue of substance or to make any significant or memorable change though a candidate is going to have to abandon the idea of having a two term presidency. I truly don't understand the fixation with abandoning all ambition and policy in order to seek reelection - the incremental benefit seems incredibly low. Obviously, Obama had major hurdles with the house and senate that meant he couldn't exactly get his agenda through in exactly the way he wanted - however I don't think anyone could say he died on any hills during his presidency either.</p>
<p> </p>
<p>I will say that the next term could be very interesting given there are 4 supreme court justices 75+ (two democrat appointments, two republican) - so we could see an ideological shift depending on how that cookie crumbles. If a republican were to appoint more ideologues to replace all democrats and getting functional gun reform by overturning McDonald vs Chicago would be out the window.</p>
</div>
</blockquote>
<p>I honestly wasn't actually getting at anything - I was just asking. :)</p>
<p> </p>
<p>Do you think a moderate Republican would have any chance of getting any of that done?</p> -
-
<blockquote class="ipsBlockquote" data-author="Paekakboyz" data-cid="507420" data-time="1439244312"><p>Yeah, but if he went hard how much would have been overturned when he became a one-term president and a republican president replaced him. Kind of a strawman argument but it did seem like he was going gently, gently when his support and power to effect change was at its peak. Aside from gun control he has tangled with some huge policy changes though. Don't they call healthcare and insurance the 'third rail' of US politics? electrified!!</p></blockquote>
<br>
I don't know if that's how it would've played out given there really wasn't any quality candidates putting their hand up in the last election - from either side..... -
<blockquote class="ipsBlockquote" data-author="ACT Crusader" data-cid="507451" data-time="1439248961">
<div>
<p>I don't know if that's how it would've played out given there really wasn't any quality candidates putting their hand up in the last election - from either side.....</p>
</div>
</blockquote>
<p> </p>
<p>True, especially as that candidate would need broad appeal in addition to hardcore republicans to knock Obama off his perch.</p>
<p> </p>
<p>Given the shit-fest of US politics I'm astounded that anything actually gets passed. A lot of things have to line up right to give a president an environment to actually make changes.</p> -
<blockquote class="ipsBlockquote" data-author="Paekakboyz" data-cid="507457" data-time="1439250576"><p>True, especially as that candidate would need broad appeal in addition to hardcore republicans to knock Obama off his perch.<br>
<br>
Given the shit-fest of US politics I'm astounded that anything actually gets passed. A lot of things have to line up right to give a president an environment to actually make changes.</p></blockquote>And the lobby groups are all in the background pulling the strings. "It's not countries anymore, it's corporations" -
<p>It's not meant to be easy for the President to get his own way. He is not a King. The system was designed with checks and balances including co-equal branches to place limits on the power of one branch (and therefore the populace against each other)</p>
<p> </p>
<p>"Change" should come at a State level. Some changes will fail, others will succeed and be adopted by other States. Its the whole concept of "Laboratories of democracy" etc etc</p> -
<p>..on the "King" analogy</p>
<p> </p>
<p>I was amazed that someone thought it was a good idea to have the Presidential debate hosts talk about "..a new King"?? I know the level of understanding of American civics/history is getting more and more retarded but that is piss poor</p> -
<p>agree entirely that it shouldn't be easy but with entrenched perspectives seems like a succession of stalemates - even when there happen to be some common areas of agreement. But that is down to the people/parties involved moreso than it not being a workable system. imo</p>
-
<blockquote class="ipsBlockquote" data-author="rotated" data-cid="507421" data-time="1439244571">
<div>
<p>I agree. I do think however the co-operation and rhetoric between the branches had devolved considerably since the Clinton administration. Those two years at the beginning of the administration also was the worst possible timing in regards to the GFC - very difficult to do a great deal of social reform when there was so much uncertainty in the electorate at that time.</p>
<p> </p>
<p>That said the Obama presidency was a luke-warm disappointment and I think he will reflect ruefully <em><strong>that he didn't go for broke in the first term.</strong></em></p>
</div>
</blockquote>
<p> </p>
<p>The big difference between Clinton & Obama was Clinton worked incredibly hard to get people who hated him him to help him pass bills. He negotiated.</p>
<p> </p>
<p>Obama has been a massive faillure in a lot of areas because he hasn't attempted to meet the other guys on any level. And he DID shove stuff thru - Obamacare is exactly that.</p>
<p> </p>
<p>And his decision to go it alone with his party not only poisoned the next 6 years, but also meant the bill itself is crippled as he had to stuff it with all sorts of bullshit to buy every single Democrat vote going - shit like the fact that 49 states have to pay for the expanision, Nebraska doesn't. Why? Because they REALLY needed Ben Nelson's vote & played masterful hardball. Really, Nelsons work looking after Nebraska was astonishingly good. Or corrupt, depending how you look at it.</p>
<p> </p>
<p>Its literally rammed full of shit like that to buy Democrat votes (the irony of American politics, a Democratic president has to buy Democratic votes). When he could have compromised a bit with moderate Republicans & got a few of their votes, not spiked his next 8 years, AND avoided crippling the bill.</p> -
Obama said something along the lines of preferring to be a one-termer who reformed rather than a two-termer who played it safe. I guess that went the way of hope and change.<br><br>
Ultimately anyone who wants to be president doesn't want the job to be an agent of change. They want the job to be the farking most powerful person on the planet and they'll say whatever the hell they need to say to get it. -
<p>This morning on Fox News (link to clip at bottom).</p>
<p> </p>
<blockquote class="ipsBlockquote">
<p style="color:rgb(0,0,0);font-family:Helvetica, Arial, sans-serif;background-color:rgb(248,248,248);"><span style="font-size:14px;"><span style="font-size:24px;"><strong>Donald Trump</strong> finally laid out his plan for dealing with Iran</span> on <em>Fox & Friends </em>Tuesday, recommending that the United States “knock the hell out of them†and then “take the oil.â€</span></p>
<p style="color:rgb(0,0,0);font-family:Helvetica, Arial, sans-serif;background-color:rgb(248,248,248);"> </p>
<p style="color:rgb(0,0,0);font-family:Helvetica, Arial, sans-serif;background-color:rgb(248,248,248);"><span style="font-size:14px;">Host <b>Steve Doocy</b> asked Trump about his plans to deal with ISIS. But whether he was confused or misspoke, Trump started talking about <i>Iran</i>. “Iran is taking over Iraq 100%, just like I predicted years ago,†he said. “I say this, I didn’t want to go there in the first place. Now we take the oil.â€</span></p>
<p style="color:rgb(0,0,0);font-family:Helvetica, Arial, sans-serif;background-color:rgb(248,248,248);"> </p>
<p style="color:rgb(0,0,0);font-family:Helvetica, Arial, sans-serif;background-color:rgb(248,248,248);"><span style="font-size:14px;">“We should have kept the oil,†Trump continued. “Now we go in, we knock the hell out of them, take the oil, we thereby take their wealth. They have so much money.â€</span></p>
<p style="color:rgb(0,0,0);font-family:Helvetica, Arial, sans-serif;background-color:rgb(248,248,248);"> </p>
<p style="color:rgb(0,0,0);font-family:Helvetica, Arial, sans-serif;background-color:rgb(248,248,248);"><span style="font-size:14px;">“They have better internet connections than we do in the United States,†he complained. “They’re training our kids through the internet. We have to knock out their wealth.â€</span></p>
<p> </p>
</blockquote>
<p style="color:rgb(0,0,0);font-family:Helvetica, Arial, sans-serif;background-color:rgb(248,248,248);"> </p>
<p style="color:rgb(0,0,0);font-family:Helvetica, Arial, sans-serif;background-color:rgb(248,248,248);"><a data-ipb='nomediaparse' href='http://www.mediaite.com/tv/donald-trumps-iran-plan-knock-the-hell-out-of-them-take-the-oil/'>http://www.mediaite.com/tv/donald-trumps-iran-plan-knock-the-hell-out-of-them-take-the-oil/</a></p>
<p style="color:rgb(0,0,0);font-family:Helvetica, Arial, sans-serif;background-color:rgb(248,248,248);"> </p>
<p style="color:rgb(0,0,0);font-family:Helvetica, Arial, sans-serif;background-color:rgb(248,248,248);">(Maybe Donald is actually talking about Iraq here. Maybe both!!)</p> -
<blockquote class="ipsBlockquote" data-author="Rancid Schnitzel" data-cid="507591" data-time="1439284660">
<div>
<p>Obama said something along the lines of preferring to be a one-termer who reformed rather than a two-termer who played it safe. I guess that went the way of hope and change.<br><br>
Ultimately anyone who wants to be president doesn't want the job to be an agent of change. T<strong>hey want the job to be the farking most powerful person on the planet and they'll say whatever the hell they need to say to get it.</strong></p>
</div>
</blockquote>
<p> </p>
<p>I don't think it's a desire to have that job. I think it's the thrill/challenge of a second presidential election campaign that is so tantalising.</p>
<p> </p>
<p>You keep the pension, you keep the security detail, you keep the profile, you can command six figures to speak at unlimited functions at whatever venue around the world you choose, you can do literally anything you want and go anywhere you want as a former POTUS. You can't tell me Bill Clinton hasn't had a more enjoyable last 4 years than Obama all told, but he'd probably do anything for another campaign (thus Hilary).</p>
<p> </p>
<p>There is also probably a lot of legacy to it as well. Two-term presidencies have become the norm (if you consider GHWB an extension of a Reagan republican threepeat) and it certainly does seem like Jimmy Carter is not put in the same honour circle as the other living presidents as my time.</p>
US Politics