US Congressional Elections

[charaman]

Originally posted by ZeroKirbyX
Indeed. I suppose its just who we decide to affiliate with. My main reason for claiming to be a republican I suppose is their record of getting stuff done, even if it is a bit brash. Democrats tend to stop, think, think, cry, think, complain, pin the blame, and wait to long to do anything worthwhile.

It's just the stuff the republicans have gotten done that I really can't support. I'm for the people, not the businesses. And the Democrats have gotten nothing done because they've been the minority for 12 years. Minorities always get bitchy.


I'm waiting for the impending minimum wage increase, some kind of decision on Iraq, and other goodies. I hope.

[plightofthepureblood]

In the spirit of Canadian Apathy....
Im posting this here too.

[ZeroKirbyX]

Dude, awesome.

[Anubis_Soldier]

Well, nothing will get done for the next two years in america, Bush will probably veto most bills from congress and congress will not cooperate with bush on anything... at all ever.

[charaman]

Originally posted by Anubis_Soldier
Well, nothing will get done for the next two years in america, Bush will probably veto most bills from congress and congress will not cooperate with bush on anything... at all ever.

Better than a congress that he owns and does whatever he wants. That's not checks and balances, especially since the supreme court is that way too.

[ZeroKirbyX]

For checks and balances to work, there has to be a middle ground where people can work together. When you have a system where Bush will always cancel the house, and the house will cancel Bush, nothing gets done. The system put in place in 1776 was a system that could work. What it's evolved to is far different.

[charaman]

poitical parties ruin government, and make working together to get anything productive done very hard.

[Rowan]

Originally posted by ZeroKirbyX
For checks and balances to work, there has to be a middle ground where people can work together. When you have a system where Bush will always cancel the house, and the house will cancel Bush, nothing gets done. The system put in place in 1776 was a system that could work. What it's evolved to is far different.

I heard that congress can override a presidents veto in special cases.

[charaman]

Originally posted by Rowan

quote:

Originally posted by ZeroKirbyX For checks and balances to work, there has to be a middle ground where people can work together. When you have a system where Bush will always cancel the house, and the house will cancel Bush, nothing gets done. The system put in place in 1776 was a system that could work. What it's evolved to is far different.

I heard that congress can override a presidents veto in special cases.

if it is passed a second time with a 3/4 majority.

[Osmose]

2/3rds majority, I thought, for overriding a veto. Which the Democrats can't muster with a simple majority.

However, thinking that the President will just veto all democratic Bills is very ignorant. The President knows that the Democrats own Congress and will not pass the bills he wants. At the same time, Democrats know that he can and will veto their bills.

This is where the base concept of compromise comes into play. Bush and the Republicans will let the Democrats pass some of their policy if, in return, the Democrats let the Republicans pass some of their policy. Or, in other cases, the Democrats will agree to a few alterations in one of their proposals in order to get the President to let it fly.

Quite frankly, having Congress and the President as the same party is a very dangerous thing, whether Democrat or Republican. It just so happens that the general attitude and methods of Republicans can take advantage of that far more than Democrats would. During the last six years, Republicans in Congress have basically shut out all Democrats from being able to have an effect on policy. Heavy-handed tactics, including withholding the location of a policy meeting from Democrats, midnight votes where Republicans take advantage of tired Democrats/wavering-Republicans and force them to vote their way, extended votes where Republicans go around Congress and offer services to get the vote, etc.

Admittedly, some of those examples may be on the extreme side, but the fact remainse that Republicans are pretty brutal in power. At the same time, though, Democrats in full power isn't right either. They wouldn't go quite as far as Republicans would, due to their leaning with compromise, but there would be no middle-ground of policy. I'm glad that things are this way now, because it forces the kind of compromise that America needs.

[Cosmos]

Originally posted by Weregnome
Do you know what I find really creepy? How intelligent alot of the younger Charas Forum users are on political issues etc.

Agree'd. XD

[Glitch]

It is 2/3 majority.  It's really hard to overide a veto, it usually just ends up being kicked back to congress and going into conference comittees and crap like that, and gets revised and sent back to the pres.  

Oh, Charaman, I might have misunderstood your post, but the Supreme Court isn't completely on Bush's side. He has 4 out of the 9 members definately on his side. 4 of the members are usually against him, and one member tends to go either way. That exact balance is coming into play very soon when they look at parial birth abortion, which is a very sick issue.


You guys wanna know something interesting about the senate?
Did you know that a very large amount of senators, both republican and democrat, are alcoholics? There are tons of more secretive AA groups in Washington. It's considered one of the most stressful jobs in America, so that's understandable (not right, but understandable). I'm telling you, if you take courses that address stuff like this in College, it will blow your mind how little we really know about the Government. Every thing we see as simple, is so freaking complex to an almost unneccessary point.

[Tomi]

ZKX, you are not alone.  *republican'd* I am fearing for my life if Hillary ever gets elected.  I think that the Democratic majority is going to screw over a lot of things.  I don't agree with everything Bush does, but I definitely disagree with most of the flaming liberal ideas.  Most of the time, I notice that liberals seem to think ideally instead of logically.  For example, the war in Iraq.  Libs want to pull out immediately, regardless of any consequences.  They say that our soldiers are dying for no reason.  However, if we do a full pull out right away, all the work that our soldiers have done and all the times people have died would all be in vain.  We went in there, and we need to finish the job by helping the Iraqis build up their defenses so no one needs to step in at a later point.  Pulling out now would be a disgrace to our country, and would make any hope for a democratic Iraq a splode.

[charaman]

Yeah, sorry 2/3's. My bad.

Originally posted by Tomi
ZKX, you are not alone.  *republican'd* I am fearing for my life if Hillary ever gets elected.  I think that the Democratic majority is going to screw over a lot of things.  I don't agree with everything Bush does, but I definitely disagree with most of the flaming liberal ideas.  Most of the time, I notice that liberals seem to think ideally instead of logically.  For example, the war in Iraq.  Libs want to pull out immediately, regardless of any consequences.  They say that our soldiers are dying for no reason.  However, if we do a full pull out right away, all the work that our soldiers have done and all the times people have died would all be in vain.  We went in there, and we need to finish the job by helping the Iraqis build up their defenses so no one needs to step in at a later point.  Pulling out now would be a disgrace to our country, and would make any hope for a democratic Iraq a splode.

I haven't heard anyone REASONABLE call for immediate withdrawal. There's a few groups thinking of an exit strategy, but no effectual groups calling for withdrawal immediately. There's the crazy irrational representative here and there, but no one reasonable is.

Actually, a republican vote on the issue was shot down 403-3:

http://www.breitbart.com/news/2005/11/18/D8DVAQ6O3.html


Oh and Glitch, yeah. It's just a lot of times that they agree with him I don't, and I'm a bitter little bitch.

[Glitch]

Originally posted by charaman
Oh and Glitch, yeah. It's just a lot of times that they agree with him I don't, and I'm a bitter little bitch.

XD

on a different note...

It would have to suck to be in the house, people tend to not care about the house, all the attention goes to the senate.

as illustrated here...

http://www.shortpacked.com/d/20060328.html

oh, and no there isn't an immediate withdrawl plan on the table yet. However, most democrats, and apparently from what NYtimes said, Bush himself have decided to start implementing a new withdrawl plan. It's one of the big things the Democrats want to get accomplished starting next year, they want to try and start the process up. Bush has decided that starting next year he wants to start a new bi-partisan era, where he works with the democrats towards good compromises.

That's what the NYtimes said anyway.   Whatever you believe, you gotta give Bush a little credit for extending some sort of olive branch. In fact, he even took responsibility for the Republicans losing the election and some of the problems facing the country. Never too late.