US Congressional elections - Democrats or Republicans (1 Viewer)

[BlackDragon]

the US system confuses me. they have a senate and a house of reps, but the leader of the country is not in the house of reps? so how does he stop the house of reps, if it is democrat, from creating bills that oppose his government, even if they don't get passed in the senate. what power does the president have, at all, if he doesn't control the lower house or even both!?!?!!!?
?!?!?!?!?

 

[gerhard]

BBC has the Senate at 46-43-2 to the GOP and the House 160-156 to the Dems. The massive Democratic landslide hasn't materialised; which represents a victory for the Republicans and President Bush. If I were a leftist I'd be crying right now because the results are demonstrating the failure of the Dems campaign.

quoted for retardedness.

you dont even have the right amount of seats for one

 

[otay]

As President, he is head of government. One extremely important power he has is he can veto any legislation that passes through Congress. The veto can be overturned if a 2-3 thirds majority is reached in each House. This first occured during Bush's presidency a few months ago when he vetoed a bill which would have lifted a ban on funding for embryonic stem cell research.

 

[onebytwo]

Rumsfeld quitting as defense secretary

about bloody time!

 

[dagwoman]

Could someone kindly point me to a "government structure for dummies" website of some kind?

 

[leetom]

the US system confuses me. they have a senate and a house of reps, but the leader of the country is not in the house of reps? so how does he stop the house of reps, if it is democrat, from creating bills that oppose his government, even if they don't get passed in the senate. what power does the president have, at all, if he doesn't control the lower house or even both!?!?!!!?
?!?!?!?!?

With loss of the House, the President's power is limited and his prestige greatly diminshed. As far as I understand it, that is the nature of US democracy and alot of deadlock can be expected with a Democrat controlled House (eg Dems will refuse funding to specific things as the President needs approval of Congress when applying for stuff, I think).

The loss of prestige is what makes him a 'lame duck' president.

 

[yy]

Now Bush loses Senate

 

[absolution*]

Yeah, I think the US has a separation of powers such that the congress (house and senate) the executive (president and ministers) and the judiciary (supreme court) all operate together in forming and implementing power. This is why people like Rumseld can go off and work in the private sector when the republicans arent in power and then come back as presidential ministers are elected directly by the president and not through a voting system like we have here.

SMH reporting Senate going to Democrats.

 

[dagwoman]

So Happy.

 

[Tulipa]

So Happy.

um any particular reason why?

 

[bshoc]

Umm why are the lefties so overexcited, lets analyse the facts here for a second:

* Bush has had six years with a majority in house and congress, he'll have only 2 years as a lame duck president, which is alot better than most presidents like Clinton ever got.

* Historically the ruling party has lost out in midterms in a two term president history, infact this is one of the weakest pickups in history after Reagan's second midterm. Given the political sitution, the Dems didnt do nearly as well as would have been expected.

* The Democrats that give the leftie Dems their majorities are Dems like blue dogs, southern democrats, social conservatives, military dems like Webb etc. So there may be some change in the direction of taxation, and maybe some general points about the Iraq war, but most things like the War on Terror and the Bush admin social initiatives wont just continue, there's actually more conservative Democrats going in then there are moderate and liberal Republicans coming out.

What do I mean by "Democrats like blue dogs etc." , well people like Zell Miller

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=fENTx9gMB4w
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=WVvZ8FW2D2M
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=bDQ_urqKT6E

* BUSH VETO EVERYTHING, and there's no way anyone but the far left democrats and few very pissed off libertarian republicans are even going to think about things like impeachment or stopping conservative social initiatives.

So yeah, perspective people ..

 

[absolution*]

Umm why are the lefties so overexcited, lets analyse the facts here for a second:

* Bush has had six years with a majority in house and congress, he'll have only 2 years as a lame duck president, which is alot better than most presidents like Clinton ever got.

* Historically the ruling party has lost out in midterms in a two term president history, infact this is one of the weakest pickups in history after Reagan's second midterm. Given the political sitution, the Dems didnt do nearly as well as would have been expected.

* The Democrats that give the leftie Dems their majorities are Dems like blue dogs, southern democrats, social conservatives, military dems like Webb etc. So there may be some change in the direction of taxation, and maybe some general points about the Iraq war, but most things like the War on Terror and the Bush admin social initiatives wont just continue, there's actually more conservative Democrats going in then there are moderate and liberal Republicans coming out.

What do I mean by "Democrats like blue dogs etc." , well people like Zell Miller

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=fENTx9gMB4w
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=WVvZ8FW2D2M
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=bDQ_urqKT6E

* BUSH VETO EVERYTHING, and there's no way anyone but the far left democrats and few very pissed off libertarian republicans are even going to think about things like impeachment or stopping conservative social initiatives.

So yeah, perspective people ..

I think youre looking at things in much too fragmented a fashion. I believe a far more systemic and structural approach is warranted. Whilst i disagree that the pickups of 28 house seats and the 6 senate seats to give them power can be considered 'weak', what this election represents is the end of the modern conservative era and a reorientation of the minds of the populace towards a more just national policy in the US. A refocusing of the issues past fear and loathing to sound foreign and economic policy. This is something even David Brooks has admitted. Politics is never something that can be interpreted through a narrow keyhole. Its largely an irrational machine and flows in ebbs and tides. And thus, the symbol and representation are the only things that can be interpreted to be of any real substance.

 

[bshoc]

I think youre looking at things in much too fragmented a fashion. I believe a far more systemic and structural approach is warranted. Whilst i disagree that the pickups of 28 house seats and the 6 senate seats to give them power can be considered 'weak', what this election represents is the end of the modern conservative era and a reorientation of the minds of the populace towards a more just national policy in the US. A refocusing of the issues past fear and loathing to sound foreign and economic policy. This is something even David Brooks has admitted. Politics is never something that can be interpreted through a narrow keyhole. Its largely an irrational machine and flows in ebbs and tides. And thus, the symbol and representation are the only things that can be interpreted to be of any real substance.

US politics more correctly follows cycles between the Dems and Republicans, the general trend however is social conservatism and economic moderation, infact the liberal and moderate Republicans like Chafee and Santorum that were kicked out were replaced by Democrats who were in effect, far more conservative, for example most of the democratic pickups were by people like these, you tell me which isle of the political arena they truly represent:

http://www.bluedogdems.com/index.html
http://www.democratsforlife.org/

A political trend does not equate to a party trend

 

[absolution*]

Republicans like Chafee and Santorum that were kicked out were replaced by Democrats who were in effect, far more conservative, for example most of the democratic pickups were by people like these

If you think that this vote had anything to do with individual candidates, rather than a general political dissatisfaction with Iraq and Bush, then you are deluding yourself. The general trend is in fact the opposite to social conservatism. Just think, it took 7 years before the Vietnam protests . With Iraq, there was a general dissatisfaction to begin with that has only grown over time. The only reason politics appears to sway in the favour of social conservatism is because politics in based within a super-structure of institutions that ultimately cannot keep pace with social and economic progress. Any objective measure of social progress, whether be womens rights, racial rights, welfare provisions etc. will substantiate this.

 

[Naylyn]

The reason that the Deomcrats are so excited is because they have been under the whip of Bush for six years and now they are not AND they can now hold unlimited inquiries into Bush's policy while having the majority of the members on the inquiry and the chairperson as democrats, hopefully embarising the republicans sufficiently to have a chance at taking the presidency in 2 years time.

 

[withoutaface]

US politics more correctly follows cycles between the Dems and Republicans, the general trend however is social conservatism and economic moderation, infact the liberal and moderate Republicans like Chafee and Santorum that were kicked out were replaced by Democrats who were in effect, far more conservative, for example most of the democratic pickups were by people like these, you tell me which isle of the political arena they truly represent:

http://www.bluedogdems.com/index.html
http://www.democratsforlife.org/

A political trend does not equate to a party trend

Santorum moderate? HAHAHAHAHAHAHA

He was the one who said that "the pursuit of happiness is going too far, it's hurting America".

Now can anyone remind me what the opening paragraph of the Declaration of Independence says? Oh that's right; "We hold these Truths to be self-evident: that all Men are created equal, that they are endowed, by their Creator, with certain unalienable Rights, that among these are Life, Liberty, and the Pursuit of Happiness."

 

[dagwoman]

Santorum is a f*cking crackpot.

In 2001, Santorum tried unsuccessfully to insert language which came to be known as the "Santorum Amendment" into the No Child Left Behind bill that sought to promote the teaching of intelligent design while questioning the academic standing of evolution in public schools.[12] The amendment, crafted with the assistance of the Discovery Institute,[12][13] would have required schools to discuss alleged controversies surrounding scientific topics, and gave the theory of evolution as an example, opening the door for intelligent design as an opposing theory to be presented in science classrooms.[14]

 

[Not-That-Bright]

I actually think the debate regarding intelligent design should be discussed in schools, in perhaps a philosophy or 'critical thinking' class of some type - Not in the science classroom.

 

[bshoc]

Santorum is a f*cking crackpot.

In 2001, Santorum tried unsuccessfully to insert language which came to be known as the "Santorum Amendment" into the No Child Left Behind bill that sought to promote the teaching of intelligent design while questioning the academic standing of evolution in public schools.[12] The amendment, crafted with the assistance of the Discovery Institute,[12][13] would have required schools to discuss alleged controversies surrounding scientific topics, and gave the theory of evolution as an example, opening the door for intelligent design as an opposing theory to be presented in science classrooms.[14]

Well evolution hasnt been able to refute the major cases against it either ie. the cambrian explosion, the chinese fossil bed. I don't see how teaching a variety of theories is bad, isnt that what a liberal education is about?

 

[bshoc]

Santorum moderate? HAHAHAHAHAHAHA

He was the one who said that "the pursuit of happiness is going too far, it's hurting America".

Now can anyone remind me what the opening paragraph of the Declaration of Independence says? Oh that's right; "We hold these Truths to be self-evident: that all Men are created equal, that they are endowed, by their Creator, with certain unalienable Rights, that among these are Life, Liberty, and the Pursuit of Happiness."

Alright just stick with Chafee and all the NE liberal Repubs that got kicked out, no need to get all anal.