Ultimately I think democratic elections are actually somewhat farcical, unless a party takes all seats then the moderating influence of the other parties dilutes their actions. It roughly works out the same in the end, the biggest difference is in the way the leaders/party convey themselves publicly and what destabilising factors they encounter in their term as to how history will record it.
This is why I get so confused about why so many people get all worked up about elections. I guess they don't understand that the president has pretty limited power in the scheme of things?
Just because a candidate says "I'm going to legalize pot" or "make abortions illegal" doesn't mean they'll be able to get it through the house and senate; and even if they do there is the opportunity for it to be taken to the supreme court and overturned if it's deemed a possible infringement on constitutional rights.
The American political process has essentially turned in to a sporting event. Look at the way fans of great rivalries behave (Yankees v. Red Sox, Celtics v. Lakers, etc..) then look at the the way the base of each political party and their pundits talk about each other.
Well, consider this when it comes to the supreme court, anytime one steps down, the president essentially gets to throw who ever they desire onto the bench. If I remember right, the current president put 2 or more up on it, which can sway things greatly in his favor if needed.
Well, consider this when it comes to the supreme court, anytime one steps down, the president essentially gets to throw who ever they desire onto the bench. If I remember right, the current president put 2 or more up on it, which can sway things greatly in his favor if needed.
Exactly. IMO this election is more about the Supreme Court than anything else, it is likely that whoever is president in the next 4 years will get to appoint several justices which could have a significant impact on the courts ruling on major issues.
This is why I get so confused about why so many people get all worked up about elections. I guess they don't understand that the president has pretty limited power in the scheme of things?
Just because a candidate says "I'm going to legalize pot" or "make abortions illegal" doesn't mean they'll be able to get it through the house and senate; and even if they do there is the opportunity for it to be taken to the supreme court and overturned if it's deemed a possible infringement on constitutional rights.
The American political process has essentially turned in to a sporting event. Look at the way fans of great rivalries behave (Yankees v. Red Sox, Celtics v. Lakers, etc..) then look at the the way the base of each political party and their pundits talk about each other.
Sports fans, that's a great analogy that I agree with. It's similar in politics over here but I'd say with a bit less fanaticism than I see (at least from the news that makes it here) than the US. At the end of the day unless a state is broken the role of a government is to keep the status quo, or at least to a degree. Obviously some advancements need to be made but for the most part they are practical and could be derived by any group with enough brain cells to share around regardless of party allegiance.
I'm voting Romney. I see clearly what Obamas policies have done to my health care ( my company is dropping it), my taxes ( I've never had to pay in until this year), my electric bill (his war on coal) and my gas bill (war on oil). Personally I like Johnson, but this election is WAY to important to be making a point.
To add to this his regulatory agencies have way too much descresion and he side steps congress when it suits him more then any president in recent history I.e. the EPA and ATF.
Neither Obama or Romney are great imo. If I were to vote it would be Obama due to me disliking Romney contradicting himself such as when he complained about spending money on people during a natural disaster, look at what he says now. I dislike that he claims to be for American jobs, yet he has sent them overseas, etc.
Romney also tends to change his opinions radically, I doubt that he knows where he actually stands on anything.
I'm not saying that Obama doesn't have similar contradictions, but his are not as apparent and extreme as Romney's in my opinion.
I doubt either will help the economy hugely and that the economy will slowly recover regardless.
No matter who we go with, nothing substantial will change that quickly, especially because Congress stands the same for the most part while the president is who changes seats. I personally don't care for Obama, but I really, really cannot stand Romney. I'm not voting for either and I'll write something else in.
I get the feeling that Obama genuinely does want what's best for the country, or at least wants to do some good, but he's getting stuck in the cogs of the giant political machine. He has limited power due to all the rust in Congress, and plenty of policies he has tried to push through either get held up or have to be heavily modified to appease the machine by being more beneficial to them, not to the public.
Romney on the other hand, no go ever. I agree with Roark in the sense that regardless of stances or plans, it has to go through the House and Senate first and may not make it...but the stances candidates take are tell-tale signs of their character as human beings and a glimpse at how they view the world. Because of this, you will never see me even consider voting for Romney/Ryan. At least you don't see Obama going to a soup kitchen for 5 minutes to stage a photo op working in the kitchen when he isn't even volunteering in the first place. *coughcoughryancough*
More to the point though, I'm tired of this 2 party system that gets played up by the media. People say you don't waste your vote if you vote for who you believe in the most, but in reality it is a waste if it won't get your candidate anywhere. Society as a whole is glued to mainstream media and almost never hears anything about other options for President because money money money money. I think this is slowly changing as people become more and more aware of alternative news sources, but it's running at a turtle crawl. Maybe in the future it won't be a waste to vote on an alternative candidate, and I eagerly wait for that day.
While my political leanings are more to the left (I wouldn't call myself liberal really, but progressive is fairly accurate), even I get tired of the endless fanaticism for both candidates. I may support Obama on a number of issues and policies, and I may disagree hugely with most of his, but that doesn't mean I condone unneeded attacks on both candidates from both sides. However, I think this happens because that's what Americans want to see as a whole. They want clear cut choices without having to think too hard about it, and mainstream media obliges with a vengeance.
All that matters is you educate yourself. Seek out different sources for news, because there are loads out there that aren't owned by big corporations. I personally like Midweek Politics (now called The David Pakman Show), Young Turks is pretty interesting sometimes, and my favorite vloggers The Vlogbrothers post the occasional educational video about health care, economics, the political system, etc. On that note, I think everyone should watch this and get a real understanding of how our debt and deficit works in relation to our economy. A good example of someone not just blinding voting party lines and thinking for himself.
NOTE: Here is the info from the description in relation to the gold standard if you didn't want to go to youtube and read it:
John Green said:
Here's why I think the gold standard is a bad idea: 1. By restricting money supply to the supply of gold, you risk shrinking the money supply just because of a shock leading to a disruption in supply from mining. This creates a lot of volatility in the money supply for no reason. 2. The gold standard limits a government's ability to respond to changes in the market, which can (and has) led to unescapable deflationary spirals. 3. Far from inspiring investor confidence, its implementation would crush it: New gold standard not practical | gold, standard, money - Opinion - The Orange County Register
