It's really ignorant when people say we should cut the president some slack because "it's a hard job." If it's too hard, he should drop out. Simple as that. Otherwise he should actually listen to the criticism of the people he's supposed to represent, amirite?
It's not like he doesn't try to listen to the people he represents, the entire rest of the government is there he can't just be like "Well fuck you guys, we're doing it my way"
That's not what has happened though. People argue mostly about the effects of what he has done as opposed to what he has not. We realize that there is opposition in congress but that's a separate problem. My whole thing is; if all he and the liberal media can do to explain his performance is that it's hard to work against congress then we should have a candidate that aligns with congress' views (or the other way around...(which he did have for the first half of his term and still failed).
Why on EARTH is it better to just find a candidate whose views align with congress? Since the president's view doesn't align with congress's, and we picked the president, the majorities of people's views wouldn't align with congress. Yeah, he can't do a lot of things he said he would cuz he has a hard time pushing them through, that doesn't mean we should just find someone who would have an easy time pushing things through just cuz congress agrees with them. That's progress just for the sake of progress. The entire point of our government's set up is to avoid all of everyone's view being aligned because that makes tthe government to powerful and corrupt.
People pick congress too...it's not progress for the sake of progress because of the state of our country. We kinda need any kind of cooperation or progress that we can get right now. Ideally we should pick executives and representatives who's views align in the first place but by the opposition in congress right now we need to elect either one way or the other so that we can actually make progress...and like I said, Obama already had that chance. Now it's the other side's turn
You do understand that under a popular sovereignty there will be people in congress with different views to represent what everybody wants? Picking people for congress just because they all have the same view and something needs to get done is making progress for progress sake. It's moving things forward just to move them forward rather than taking the time to wait for something that actually works and makes progress. People act like Obama hasn't made the country better at all when he has. It was in a shit hole when the other side was having their turn, he needs to be able to actually finish what he started so that it keeps moving forward. Cooperation in congress would be a great idea, but that doesn't mean fill it with people with the same view. People can cooperate while still having very different opinions, which is good because then everyone from every class and background and need gets represented.
When the other side had it? Bush was more liberal than most democrat presidents that we've had! In fact, Obama is the only one that has increased the government more than Bush! And we can see how that has worked out by the fact that there are less jobs now that in 2008, unemployment is up, median income (per capita) is down, debt is up, etc. And that's just the economic side of things.
I do realize that people have different opinions but if the majority elects congress to be republican and the president to be democrat, then the voting system is flawed (gerrymander), and nothing ever gets done because of the partisan divide. We don't have the ability to sit and wait for the perfect plan--our country is in such terrible shape that any progress is good and necessary.
Again, it's not like that is all Obama's fault. I'm not here to discuss how Obama made the country better or worse, it's unrelated to the post. Gerrymander is when one party divides up an area (like a county, city) into election districts and concentrates on getting that party the majority in that area, no idea what you're talking about. Our country is not in shambles or anything, it doesn't need to be acted on now just for the sake of acting on it now. Even if it was in shambles, it's still better to make the right decision later than any decision now just for the sake of doing SOMETHING. If I had 10 seconds to do something before a car hits me, it's better to waste 3 seconds thinking about jumping out of the way before I do it than to hop up and down on one leg instantly. Hopping up and down on one leg is doing something, but it screws me over in the long run and I may as well have just waited a few more seconds for another idea to pop up. Politics generally move pretty slow, but last I checked there wasn't "nothing being done." And if everyone in the govnt was on the same level and all this progress was being made really fast, do you really think it'd be better for us?
My reference to the gerrymander was just an example of a broken system. Looking back on what I've said I haven't been very clear so I won't bother pursuing the "progress" debate. What I originally was trying to get across was that Americans need to get their views in alignment before voting. Having the country being conservative in their representatives and liberal in their leader isn't a good way to show what we want or to get anything done
The country elects all of its reps based off what they want now, so no. All the people in government wanting the same thing, which is impossible to do under a popular sovereignty, would be a dictator ship not only because there is no check and balance system, but because there is no way people voted them into government. If all people get to vote and everyone in government has the same viewpoint, something went wrong.
Yet we have completely different ends of the political spectrum representing us in all three branches. The check and balance system wasn't supposed to go so far that nothing ever happened. I didn't say (I don't think) that everyone has to agree. However, when the majority elects a liberal president and the same majority elects a conservative congress, then something is wrong. The same group is asking for polar opposites to represent them. To me that means that they aren't voting for their true opinions
That nothing ever happens...? What the hell country are you living in that nothing happens? And yes, you said you wanted everyone in the government to have views that align. It's not the same group asking for polar opposites you need to L2 government before you talk about it next time, I'd have to write about a page to explain why that's all wrong.
I'M the person who left that comment, I know what I was saying thanks. The comment I was replying to hardly even mentioned gerrymandering, I was replying to the bit about "Having the country being conservative in their representatives and liberal in their leader isn't a good way to show what we want or to get anything done". Besides that, in a dictator ship there's only one side, a dictatorship wouldn't gerrymander there needs to be more than one party to do that.
I'm pretty sure we've been over this before. That doesn't have anything remotely close to the meaning: he's spent less. All that means is that he has increased spending less (from his predeccesor) than other presidents...and that has absolutely no meaning considering the president before him was bush!
It's simple math. Bush out, debt=$8 trillion (over the course of 8 years). Obama in, debt=$16 trillion (over the course of 4 years). 16 tril minus 8 tril equals 8 tril. In other words, he's doubled the debt in half the time
But he still increased spending and failed to cut other costs. And this is especially condemning when you look back to his goal of cutting it in half. He had a democracy lapdog in congress his first 2 years or so in office. If he couldn't get it done with next to no opposition then the blame falls on him
That doesn't mean they can do a slack job and get away with it. Being a doctor is a hard job...that's why you don't hire a janitor to do it but rather someone who's been to med school and won't whine about it being hard
Well anyone can be whiny on and individual level...but that's beside the point. Which is: If I don't want someone to run my life, and he is complaining about having to run my life, why is he running my life?
It's not like he doesn't try to listen to the people he represents, the entire rest of the government is there he can't just be like "Well fuck you guys, we're doing it my way"
That's not what has happened though. People argue mostly about the effects of what he has done as opposed to what he has not. We realize that there is opposition in congress but that's a separate problem. My whole thing is; if all he and the liberal media can do to explain his performance is that it's hard to work against congress then we should have a candidate that aligns with congress' views (or the other way around...(which he did have for the first half of his term and still failed).
Why on EARTH is it better to just find a candidate whose views align with congress? Since the president's view doesn't align with congress's, and we picked the president, the majorities of people's views wouldn't align with congress. Yeah, he can't do a lot of things he said he would cuz he has a hard time pushing them through, that doesn't mean we should just find someone who would have an easy time pushing things through just cuz congress agrees with them. That's progress just for the sake of progress. The entire point of our government's set up is to avoid all of everyone's view being aligned because that makes tthe government to powerful and corrupt.
People pick congress too...it's not progress for the sake of progress because of the state of our country. We kinda need any kind of cooperation or progress that we can get right now. Ideally we should pick executives and representatives who's views align in the first place but by the opposition in congress right now we need to elect either one way or the other so that we can actually make progress...and like I said, Obama already had that chance. Now it's the other side's turn
You do understand that under a popular sovereignty there will be people in congress with different views to represent what everybody wants? Picking people for congress just because they all have the same view and something needs to get done is making progress for progress sake. It's moving things forward just to move them forward rather than taking the time to wait for something that actually works and makes progress. People act like Obama hasn't made the country better at all when he has. It was in a shit hole when the other side was having their turn, he needs to be able to actually finish what he started so that it keeps moving forward. Cooperation in congress would be a great idea, but that doesn't mean fill it with people with the same view. People can cooperate while still having very different opinions, which is good because then everyone from every class and background and need gets represented.
When the other side had it? Bush was more liberal than most democrat presidents that we've had! In fact, Obama is the only one that has increased the government more than Bush! And we can see how that has worked out by the fact that there are less jobs now that in 2008, unemployment is up, median income (per capita) is down, debt is up, etc. And that's just the economic side of things.
I do realize that people have different opinions but if the majority elects congress to be republican and the president to be democrat, then the voting system is flawed (gerrymander), and nothing ever gets done because of the partisan divide. We don't have the ability to sit and wait for the perfect plan--our country is in such terrible shape that any progress is good and necessary.
Just wanted to note, unemployment isn't up.
http://data.bls.gov/pdq/SurveyO...me=LN_cpsbref3
I can't really tell what time period that graph covers...but two months ago unemployment was at 8.3%--the highest it's ever been
Again, it's not like that is all Obama's fault. I'm not here to discuss how Obama made the country better or worse, it's unrelated to the post. Gerrymander is when one party divides up an area (like a county, city) into election districts and concentrates on getting that party the majority in that area, no idea what you're talking about. Our country is not in shambles or anything, it doesn't need to be acted on now just for the sake of acting on it now. Even if it was in shambles, it's still better to make the right decision later than any decision now just for the sake of doing SOMETHING. If I had 10 seconds to do something before a car hits me, it's better to waste 3 seconds thinking about jumping out of the way before I do it than to hop up and down on one leg instantly. Hopping up and down on one leg is doing something, but it screws me over in the long run and I may as well have just waited a few more seconds for another idea to pop up. Politics generally move pretty slow, but last I checked there wasn't "nothing being done." And if everyone in the govnt was on the same level and all this progress was being made really fast, do you really think it'd be better for us?
My reference to the gerrymander was just an example of a broken system. Looking back on what I've said I haven't been very clear so I won't bother pursuing the "progress" debate. What I originally was trying to get across was that Americans need to get their views in alignment before voting. Having the country being conservative in their representatives and liberal in their leader isn't a good way to show what we want or to get anything done
I don't think you really understand things like that are nigh impossible to avoid without being a dictatorship or monarchy.
A country that elects all of its representative based on what they want instead of political drivel constitutes a dictatorship?
The country elects all of its reps based off what they want now, so no. All the people in government wanting the same thing, which is impossible to do under a popular sovereignty, would be a dictator ship not only because there is no check and balance system, but because there is no way people voted them into government. If all people get to vote and everyone in government has the same viewpoint, something went wrong.
Yet we have completely different ends of the political spectrum representing us in all three branches. The check and balance system wasn't supposed to go so far that nothing ever happened. I didn't say (I don't think) that everyone has to agree. However, when the majority elects a liberal president and the same majority elects a conservative congress, then something is wrong. The same group is asking for polar opposites to represent them. To me that means that they aren't voting for their true opinions
That nothing ever happens...? What the hell country are you living in that nothing happens? And yes, you said you wanted everyone in the government to have views that align. It's not the same group asking for polar opposites
you need to L2 government before you talk about it next time, I'd have to write about a page to explain why that's all wrong.
Please do
I'M the person who left that comment, I know what I was saying thanks. The comment I was replying to hardly even mentioned gerrymandering, I was replying to the bit about "Having the country being conservative in their representatives and liberal in their leader isn't a good way to show what we want or to get anything done". Besides that, in a dictator ship there's only one side, a dictatorship wouldn't gerrymander there needs to be more than one party to do that.
Not really picking a side here, but it's not as if the debt hasn't increased pretty steadily under Obama.
You do know Obama has doubled what bush spent in less than half the time right?
I'm pretty sure we've been over this before. That doesn't have anything remotely close to the meaning: he's spent less. All that means is that he has increased spending less (from his predeccesor) than other presidents...and that has absolutely no meaning considering the president before him was bush!
I don't see how those remotely contradict or how that shows me supporting Bush...
It's simple math. Bush out, debt=$8 trillion (over the course of 8 years). Obama in, debt=$16 trillion (over the course of 4 years). 16 tril minus 8 tril equals 8 tril. In other words, he's doubled the debt in half the time
But he still increased spending and failed to cut other costs. And this is especially condemning when you look back to his goal of cutting it in half. He had a democracy lapdog in congress his first 2 years or so in office. If he couldn't get it done with next to no opposition then the blame falls on him
Because they all think its too hard?
That doesn't mean they can do a slack job and get away with it. Being a doctor is a hard job...that's why you don't hire a janitor to do it but rather someone who's been to med school and won't whine about it being hard
Well anyone can be whiny on and individual level...but that's beside the point. Which is: If I don't want someone to run my life, and he is complaining about having to run my life, why is he running my life?
Again, this is more about people using this as an excuse to justify his poor performance and low approval rating
If they don't get away with it then why would anyone say this in the first place (which they constantly do)?