I Could Use A Little Outside Perspective...

[Nedew]

I have to say I'm quite impressed with the knowledge the UK and Canada have of our politics.

 

Your politics is everyone's politics it seems. American culture is pretty widespread don't ya know

 

I'm sorry to say all I know about UK politics is that some time ago guns were outlawed in the country thus destroying the past time of fox hunting?

 

Wow Where on earth did the NRA get their facts on that? Firstly fox hunting has nothing to do with guns, it's posh people on horseback running after dogs that are are running after (and killing) foxes. It's less Fox Hunting and more Watching Foxes Get Hunted.

 

Secondly, private gun ownership was banned over here after Dunblane. A bloke walked into a school and killed a dozen 6-year olds and their teacher, then offed himself.

 

So yeah other than extreme strict gun laws and the belief that most people in the UK hate being in Iraq more than the U.S citizens do and Tony Blair is thought to be a puppet created by the United States to do whatever we tell him to.

 

Uh, you know Blair hasn't been in power for nearly 3 years right? And we don't have troops in Iraq anymore. 'Just' Afghanistan.

 

I still think "Blackpool, England" is the coolest hometown name ever.

 

Blackpool really, really isn't cool

[Stennick]

Wow Where on earth did the NRA get their facts on that? Firstly fox hunting has nothing to do with guns, it's posh people on horseback running after dogs that are are running after (and killing) foxes. It's less Fox Hunting and more Watching Foxes Get Hunted.

 

Its the NRA they don't have to make sense and rarely did. Not too mention I was telling this to people in towns like Wetumpka, Alabama not the most global aware city in the world so really it sounded nice and was in a far away magical land we called the UK.

 

Secondly, private gun ownership was banned over here after Dunblane. A bloke walked into a school and killed a dozen 6-year olds and their teacher, then offed himself.

 

Is this supported by the citizens? Do you guys LIKE not having guns, or is there some sort of seedy underbelly of the UK much like in Demoliton man where you eat rats and do other cool vintage 90's American Stuff like still own guns? I don't have a single stat in front of me but I wonder what the violent crime percentage in England is compared to that of the U.S. Has this helped or hurt since you know bad guys are always going to find ways to have guns and all that.

 

 

Uh, you know Blair hasn't been in power for nearly 3 years right? And we don't have troops in Iraq anymore. 'Just' Afghanistan.

 

 

 

Blackpool really, really isn't cool

 

Ha I warned you I knew nothing of your countries politics. Although would it be fair to say that my understanding of him as a somewhat or maybe even mostly a puppet? If so would this be the reason he is no longer in office? Were the troops removed in a sly attempt by Blair to stay in office? Or was it the next guy kinda came along and said "about the whole troops in Iraq thing.....yeah we're not really feelin it"

 

You guys got the answers and I got the questions

 

BTW I looked up Blackpool I'm very sad to know that it seems like a quaint little city off the Irish Sea. I had envisioned a dark and dreary place that bred ultimate street fighters and mans men such as William Regal. Although I did learn its the fourth largest northern English city behind Manchester, Liverpool and another one. Sadly I just read that Blackpool is the "Gay Capital" of the north. Although I have nothing against gays with a name like "Blackpool" its not the crowd you expect to find.

[Nedew]

Is this supported by the citizens? Do you guys LIKE not having guns, or is there some sort of seedy underbelly of the UK much like in Demoliton man where you eat rats and do other cool vintage 90's American Stuff like still own guns? I don't have a single stat in front of me but I wonder what the violent crime percentage in England is compared to that of the U.S. Has this helped or hurt since you know bad guys are always going to find ways to have guns and all that.

 

I've never met a single person who is pro-guns over here. It's not even an 'issue', and any party with that as a policy would face extreme opposition. Why would us having guns make us any better off y'know?

 

Gun crime is only an issue in Manchester really, where you get a bunch of disenfranchised, poverty-stricken young men who decide to start gangs. The same happens in London, but they're far too busy stabbing each other to get involved with guns.

 

Ha I warned you I knew nothing of your countries politics. Although would it be fair to say that my understanding of him as a somewhat or maybe even mostly a puppet? If so would this be the reason he is no longer in office? Were the troops removed in a sly attempt by Blair to stay in office? Or was it the next guy kinda came along and said "about the whole troops in Iraq thing.....yeah we're not really feelin it"

 

The Blair puppet thing is spot on, yeah, that was always his caricature in political cartoons. Iraq absolutely destroyed people's like of him, though considering he was in power for 10 years rot would've got him if it hadn't. The troops left last year, Brown (his successor, same party (Labour, used to be left wing but hasn't been since the 70's) btw. Unelected too, as Blair jumped before he was pushed) took them out. But then he (Brown) has since managed the lowest approval ratings over here ever, so y'know.

 

BTW I looked up Blackpool I'm very sad to know that it seems like a quaint little city off the Irish Sea. I had envisioned a dark and dreary place that bred ultimate street fighters and mans men such as William Regal. Although I did learn its the fourth largest northern English city behind Manchester, Liverpool and another one. Sadly I just read that Blackpool is the "Gay Capital" of the north. Although I have nothing against gays with a name like "Blackpool" its not the crowd you expect to find.

 

Haha, Blackpool is more like the most miserable possible holiday destination. Lots of raining and all you've got is a ****ty tower and some rides. It hasn't left the early 1900's yet

[Candyman]

Some of these replies are hilarious. I wish people would just say "I'm a blindly loyal liberal democrat" so we won't have to waste time reading about Obama getting healt care done or how he's not liberal. To the OP, you're not likely to find people any more unbiased outside this country than they are in it, honestly.

 

Obama still has two and half years, but so far the best word to describe his job performance would be failure. Complete and total failure. As in, Jimmy Carter could've just done as good a job - ouch! I couldn't help but laugh when I heard him say he'd rather be a good one term president than a mediocre two term...right now, he's on pace to be a mediocre one term president! He's yet to do anything he said he would, period.

 

Health care reform? Dead in the water. Uniting people? Yeah, AGAINST him. My favorite is how he, along with all democrats, was so passionately against no bid contracts, saying they would never happen under his watch...I guess that didn't include companies owned by people who donated to his presidential campaign, considering Checchi had no problem getting a no bid in Afghanistan. Or maybe he just had his fingers crossed, like he apparently did when he said he'd reduce earmarks, increase the Peace Corp, freeze the Estate tax law, crack down on lobbyists, give same sex couples equal rights, etc etc...

[WrestleManiac]

Obama is popular over here mostly for being the first black president. We're under the impression that America - the land famous for the KKK and shotgun toting rednecks (try and find a certain special episode of UK program Top Gear to see my point) - will magically change into a better and more understanding nation becuase the president is not white.

 

The only policy I am awear of is his health reforms: He wants an American NHS. Not a bad idea in my opinion. Is it true that if you don't have health insuarance in America the paramedics will leave you on the sidewalk?

 

Blackpool: Vegas of England. Even has a replica of the Eiffal Tower

 

Found that Top Gear Episode.

[Hyde Hill]

Hate to be a jerk, but Hyde he is not a junior. This bothers me every time I see it. He is George Walker Bush whereas his father was George Herbert Walker Bush two different names. What is weird is nobody ever calls John Q. Adams a junior but they do it to Bush all of the time.

 

Okay back to your topic.

 

I know but its for easier reference.

[Hyde Hill]

Some of these replies are hilarious. I wish people would just say "I'm a blindly loyal liberal democrat" so we won't have to waste time reading about Obama getting healt care done or how he's not liberal. To the OP, you're not likely to find people any more unbiased outside this country than they are in it, honestly.

 

Obama still has two and half years, but so far the best word to describe his job performance would be failure. Complete and total failure. As in, Jimmy Carter could've just done as good a job - ouch! I couldn't help but laugh when I heard him say he'd rather be a good one term president than a mediocre two term...right now, he's on pace to be a mediocre one term president! He's yet to do anything he said he would, period.

 

Health care reform? Dead in the water. Uniting people? Yeah, AGAINST him. My favorite is how he, along with all democrats, was so passionately against no bid contracts, saying they would never happen under his watch...I guess that didn't include companies owned by people who donated to his presidential campaign, considering Checchi had no problem getting a no bid in Afghanistan. Or maybe he just had his fingers crossed, like he apparently did when he said he'd reduce earmarks, increase the Peace Corp, freeze the Estate tax law, crack down on lobbyists, give same sex couples equal rights, etc etc...

 

It's politics people will always disagree and if you are asking opinions of people outside the US you will always get a more what in the US is considered a liberal answer because all the western civilized countries are more liberal then the US. Most of the "right wing" parties in other countries would be condemned as socialist/liberal by the republicans.

 

Why do US citizens seem to prefer a bad small government over a good big government I will never wrap my head around.

 

I just don't get all the Obama hate. He is focusing on getting you guys health care which is a non issue in other countries and stimulating your economy after George W Bush wrecked it. He can't get everything he promised done just by waving his wand.

 

BTW I am Dutch so not UK or Canada, but given that I am a political science student it's no wonder I know more about US politics. But in general people outside the US are more knowledgeable about politics of other countries and politics in general then those in the US.

[alphadraighon]

Some of these replies are hilarious. I wish people would just say "I'm a blindly loyal liberal democrat" so we won't have to waste time reading about Obama getting healt care done or how he's not liberal. To the OP, you're not likely to find people any more unbiased outside this country than they are in it, honestly.

 

Obama still has two and half years, but so far the best word to describe his job performance would be failure. Complete and total failure. As in, Jimmy Carter could've just done as good a job - ouch! I couldn't help but laugh when I heard him say he'd rather be a good one term president than a mediocre two term...right now, he's on pace to be a mediocre one term president! He's yet to do anything he said he would, period.

 

Health care reform? Dead in the water. Uniting people? Yeah, AGAINST him. My favorite is how he, along with all democrats, was so passionately against no bid contracts, saying they would never happen under his watch...I guess that didn't include companies owned by people who donated to his presidential campaign, considering Checchi had no problem getting a no bid in Afghanistan. Or maybe he just had his fingers crossed, like he apparently did when he said he'd reduce earmarks, increase the Peace Corp, freeze the Estate tax law, crack down on lobbyists, give same sex couples equal rights, etc etc...

 

This is the sort of thing I hear on a daily basis. I assume you are an American like me? Kind of why I was asking for OUTSIDE input, but I believe in open forum, and like a healthy discussion so it's cool with me.

 

Now, I challenge you with what I challenge so many people I meet. How can you say that, after only one year in office, he is a failure? The first year is rough for any president (any political leader anywhere, I would assume) because it's something of a changing of the guard. First thing a new leader has to do (assuming he's not the successor of the previous leader) is undo what came before that was damaging. Every leader, no matter how good, leaves some damage---in our case, our last president left a hippopotamic portion of it. That's not not conjecture, that's fact. Even if you focus on what few good things G.W. Bush contributed, you have to look at the sheer chaos that was left in his wake. This is a lot to contend with.

 

The second thing a new leader must do is strike a working balance with the opposition. Usually that means cutting some deals to appease a few other politicians. Here in the States, it's the politicians, the major businesses (no matter who's in charge, Corporate America always gets its say,) and finally the people themselves. That's a lot to have to balance, and no president in our short history has ever managed it in the first year.

 

Add to that the problems stemming from race in this country. Personally, I don't care that Obama is half black. It has no bearing on political policy, although it does skew people's image of that policy. Obama has to deal with pressure that no president in this country has had to deal with before: he has to deal with the fact that the majority of our country is not the same race as he his, and that a good portion of those people hate/distrust him simply because he isn't white. That's a lot to deal with. That's something I can attest to personally.

 

Considering that we are only a year into this term, I would say that failure is not even a relevant term. Neither would be success. The man is still trying to get his feet. Maybe it's taking longer than some people in the past have, but it sure is taking less than others. I still don't think that Gerald Ford ever got the hang of it. Has he followed through on his promises? I would agree that the answer is a quantified "no". Why? Because he's not had the time to. All those thing you mentioned take time. One cannot simply wave a magic wand and proclaim it done.

 

And you know, there may be some truth in what you say. If he screws up, I have no issue admitting it. But I just don't think he's screwed up yet. Perhaps history will remember him the way that you see him now. Only time will tell.

 

Thank you for being honest though. So far things here have been weighing in mostly on, as you put it "the liberal" side of things. I admire your moxy in speaking up for what you believe. Unfortunately, I wish you could provide some facts to back up your opinions.

[Shmoe]

Well despite being British I'm quite interested in American politics (no interest in English/UK politics though) and followed the Presendential race and I always liked Obama. I think that the amount of changes he said he would put into place haven't come to be because, well you'd think it would take a bit longer than a year real results to start showing. He's not going to be able to click his fingers and have his policies be in full effect, things take time and when you're the biggest superpower in the world, that's going to be closer to years than months.

 

Plus, the guy closed down Guantanamo Bay (or at least is in the process of doing so.) I don't see how that can be a bad guy, considering that places reputation.

[Nevermore]

*starts drawing up documents for world domination, with the plan to make Nevvy supreme high emperor of the world ... and Prophet gaining the role of defender of bars, pubs, and alehouses.* Muahahahahaha!

 

Gladly! I'd set a few guidelines and then sod off... libertarianism FTW!

 

Rich people getting more money compensates for people's deaths?

 

That's a rather marxist (and, thus, over-simplified perspective). Economic growth doesn't just benefit the rich.

 

Obama is powerless, actually.

 

Over here, you can't get JACK done without a super-majority in Congress. Congress is screwed up.

 

Okay, hopefully not being harsh but what on Earth are you basing this post on?

 

Congress isn't screwed up - it was delibrately designed to embody the Separation of Powers since the entire USA was founded on a principle of resisting tyranny. Again, I'd prefer your Congress to our lameduck parliament that incessantly bends to executive will!

 

Super-majority? No (20th century) president has ever passed legislation off a "super majority" - they don't really exist in America. In fact, again, you'd need to come to the UK to see a real majority .

 

What is required for the passage of major legislation is bipartisan support - this has always been the case (since about the 1940s) and will continue to be the case.

 

However, it is worth noting that Obama seems to be trying to pander to the right to gain their support without realizing it's a pointless endeavor.

 

The whole concept of bipartisan support is why he's doing this. It's not a pointless endeavour at all; it's absolutely vital to his success. To pass extreme legislation, winning over opposition-centrists is a must. But, of course, the problem is he hasn't succeeded. He's failed both to win them over and to pass the legislation.

 

Wouldn't be a problem except he explicitly promised to succeed where other presidents had failed in this task.

 

Obama didn't change his mind or bend to corruption, he just realized it's nearly impossible to pass any meaningful legislation without endless pork and huge lobby influence on Congress.

 

Maybe... but neither of us know for certain. Fact is, it comes down to one of two conclusions:

 

1. He's corrupt and he's sold out the electorate
   
2. He promised the Earth and he's too incompetent to deliver a country
   

 

Obama said he'd rather be a good 1-term president than a mediocre 2-term president. That's kind of breaking political kayfabe.

 

And this comes back to the most important point and I can't help get the feeling some of the pro-Obama people in this thread are missing the whole constitutional arrangements of the states:

 

Midterms are this year. The Democrats won't do well (which I won't bother detailing here). So, you have the same corrupt/incompetent guy in power only without a unified government this time and still incaapable of striking up bipartisan support (even moreso since the Republicans will realise they have a lot more power than they did).

 

How on Earth can that possibly add up to being succesful for any length of time?

 

American politics demands swift and positive action from Democratic presidents. Those who fail, die by their sword (e.g. Carter).

 

Quote The Raven

Nevermore

[Genadi]

It's ammusing the way people reference Jimmy Carter as the Democratic president who failed so badly that all Dems who follow must be compared to him. It's so cliche and falls into the exact kind of spin churned out in the political media constantly.

 

I leave this thread with these wise words, from 2:00 of this video is exactly my feelings on the political situation in the States....

 

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=wtIMT3PwpoA

[Nevermore]

It's ammusing the way people reference Jimmy Carter as the Democratic president who failed so badly that all Dems who follow must be compared to him. It's so cliche and falls into the exact kind of spin churned out in the political media constantly.

 

He's the post-war Democratic president who failed terribly. That really can't be denied I wouldn't have thought.

 

Quote The Raven

Nevermore

[Genadi]

He's the post-war Democratic president who failed terribly. That really can't be denied I wouldn't have thought.

 

Quote The Raven

Nevermore

 

That's your opinion, I know alot of people who think and make informed arguments that both Bush's were far, far worse in did much, much more damage to the country. Damage that will be felt for years to come.

 

I shouldn't still be in this thread, Americans and politics (I know you're English Nevermore I mean the thread in general) = negative results in most occasions. I leave you guys to it.

[Nevermore]

That's your opinion, I know alot of people who think and make informed arguments that both Bush's were far, far worse in did much, much more damage to the country. Damage that will be felt for years to come.

 

I shouldn't still be in this thread, Americans and politics (I know you're English Nevermore I mean the thread in general) = negative results in most occasions. I leave you guys to it.

 

Okay... sorry... read what I said again. I said Democratic. The rules are very different and in no way, shape or form can Bush be considered a Democrat .

 

...and the second bit seems spectacularly harsh.

 

Quote The Raven

Nevermore

[The Masked Orange]

Obama is not incompetent/corrupt. Yet.

 

 

People don't seem to realise that presidents/prime ministers/premiers etc have to bend to companies as well. People seem to think that if something appears to benefit the people it should be done. It's not always the case.

 

If any government ignores certain businesses just to focus on people then it'll cost them hugely. The economy is the backbone of any healthy country, according to certain reports that I've read, it could take the downfall of just 12 companies in America to allow China or India to become a more important country. Not just a more important economy, a more important country. Then where will America be?

 

You never know which big company is one of the ones you need to protect, if these new health care reforms are going to destroy more money than they will create (which is highly debatable but I won't go there) then I would have to consider it greatly. I probably wouldn't so it at all. Not because I don't care about the 20 million who have no insurance (???), but because of the 180 million that don't. I wouldn't have gone into Iraq for the same reason, and I would have rebuilt the twin towers for that reason.

 

I'm an odd mix, I like to think of myself as liberal, and I want a liberal government. But if I were in power I could see myself making a lot of republican choices.

 

But the republicans wouldn't take me, due to my atheism, views on abortion, views on euthanasia and views on elephants.

[alphadraighon]

Okay... sorry... read what I said again. I said Democratic. The rules are very different and in no way, shape or form can Bush be considered a Democrat .

 

...and the second bit seems spectacularly harsh.

 

Quote The Raven

Nevermore

 

 

He's unfortunately correct about Americans and politics. A lot of us tend to be very firmly rooted in our beliefs, and violently opposed people who challenge them. That includes people from both sides. The Conservatives are ready to burn anyone at the stake (sometimes literally, in the South) who is not also Conservative. Liberals, who are supposed to be more open minded about things, will protest anything that they even think of as encroaching on their beliefs (or lack there of, in some cases.)

 

People get killed in this country every day for saying/thinking/believing the "wrong" thing in the "wrong" place.

[MrOnu]

I have to say I'm quite impressed with the knowledge the UK and Canada have of our politics.

 

I believe anyone midly interested in Canadian politics absolutely needs to watch American politics. Canada is like the bastard step-child the US had with the UK a few centuries ago, in the sense of both would deny any kind of parental relationship. More seriously though, we live next to the world biggest army and it's something like 80% of our foreign business is done with the USA, so yeah, Canada needs to follow American politics very carefully, it's vital for our economic health.

 

As far as my personnal opinion matters, I'd say Obama was doomed to fail. Expectations were much too high in both domestic and foreign minds. You cannot land in any political scape and change things drastically overnight. Probably that some changes are needed but it takes times, money and good persuasion skills as the actual winning side of any situation will fight hard to not lose any kind of personnal benefit even if the social optimum would be higher if they'd lose a bit and others would gain a little something.

[lazorbeak]

People get killed in this country every day for saying/thinking/believing the "wrong" thing in the "wrong" place.

 

I live in Houston, Texas, a place not known for its open forums, and I really don't see a lot of this. Does it happen? I'm sure it does, but compared to, say, fatal car crashes, it's barely a blip on the radar. Seriously alpha it just sounds like you are in the wrong place and/or talking to the wrong people. I have talked about the pros and cons of Obama's policies plenty of times with everyone from the extremely radical left to the super conservative right. Granted, not so much a debate with the far right as having any kind of argument isn't very rewarding, but I've at least heard where they're coming from.

 

Granted my experiences may be the exception, but I think it really depends on where you're at.

 

Also, some fact-checking:

 

Obama isn't a 20th century president, so not including him in a group of them probably is a non-issue. That century ended a few years ago. :-p

 

Richard Nixon did NOT have his heart in the right place. He was a smart guy, and managed to overcome a lot of adversity, but he got into power through ruining people at every step along the way. Maybe Nixon's breed of ends justifying the means is rational, but it's not exactly thinking with your "heart."

 

Eisenhower didn't have his "heart" in the right place either. He was a political tool for the Republicans because of his war record, and he was more than happy to not upset things while he worked on his golf game. In the meantime, Civil Rights was becoming an issue and Ike was more than happy to let it be a state issue in places with incredibly corrupt majorities. Kennedy inherited a lot of Eisenhower's problems and actually tried to fix them, so of course he was far less popular in his own lifetime.

 

I don't think Obama has been a rousing success, partially because the Democratic party isn't as unified as the Republicans (thank God they kicked out Joe Lieberman). But on the plus side, we haven't declared war on anyone for no reason in the past two years. Maybe we can go a whole four?

[pate]

Is it true that if you don't have health insuarance in America the paramedics will leave you on the sidewalk?

 

Not at all.

[BHK1978]

Why do US citizens seem to prefer a bad small government over a good big government I will never wrap my head around.

 

As an American I agree with you 100%. I am I guess an FDR New Deal Democrat (All though I would never vote blindly for one party, if there is a Republican who I think can get the job done better he or she will get my vote), though I see myself more as an independent. As a fan of the New Deal, I am a fan of a big government. We need social security, universal health care, we need programs for the poor.

 

Sadly, Bedtime for Bonzo (Ronald Reagan) destroyed a lot of these programs. Because "big" government was not deemed good.

 

Also, I feel for Obama. It seems like whoever came after Bush was doomed to fail. Bush screwed this country so badly that Obama has been fighting a losing batter since he became President. In a lot of ways he is in the same boat as Hoover and Carter. He inherited a bad situation and there is so much work to do, who knows if he will be able to do it.

[Hyde Hill]

Gladly! I'd set a few guidelines and then sod off... libertarianism FTW!

 

 

 

That's a rather marxist (and, thus, over-simplified perspective). Economic growth doesn't just benefit the rich.

 

 

 

Okay, hopefully not being harsh but what on Earth are you basing this post on?

 

Congress isn't screwed up - it was delibrately designed to embody the Separation of Powers since the entire USA was founded on a principle of resisting tyranny. Again, I'd prefer your Congress to our lameduck parliament that incessantly bends to executive will!

 

Super-majority? No (20th century) president has ever passed legislation off a "super majority" - they don't really exist in America. In fact, again, you'd need to come to the UK to see a real majority .

 

What is required for the passage of major legislation is bipartisan support - this has always been the case (since about the 1940s) and will continue to be the case.

 

 

 

The whole concept of bipartisan support is why he's doing this. It's not a pointless endeavour at all; it's absolutely vital to his success. To pass extreme legislation, winning over opposition-centrists is a must. But, of course, the problem is he hasn't succeeded. He's failed both to win them over and to pass the legislation.

 

Wouldn't be a problem except he explicitly promised to succeed where other presidents had failed in this task.

 

 

 

Maybe... but neither of us know for certain. Fact is, it comes down to one of two conclusions:

 

1. He's corrupt and he's sold out the electorate
   
2. He promised the Earth and he's too incompetent to deliver a country
   

 

 

 

And this comes back to the most important point and I can't help get the feeling some of the pro-Obama people in this thread are missing the whole constitutional arrangements of the states:

 

Midterms are this year. The Democrats won't do well (which I won't bother detailing here). So, you have the same corrupt/incompetent guy in power only without a unified government this time and still incaapable of striking up bipartisan support (even moreso since the Republicans will realise they have a lot more power than they did).

 

How on Earth can that possibly add up to being succesful for any length of time?

 

American politics demands swift and positive action from Democratic presidents. Those who fail, die by their sword (e.g. Carter).

 

Quote The Raven

Nevermore

 

Lol and you call yourself a political science student? This is so black and white I am almost ashamed.

[mjdgoldeneye]

Congress isn't screwed up - it was delibrately designed to embody the Separation of Powers since the entire USA was founded on a principle of resisting tyranny. Again, I'd prefer your Congress to our lameduck parliament that incessantly bends to executive will!

 

Super-majority? No (20th century) president has ever passed legislation off a "super majority" - they don't really exist in America. In fact, again, you'd need to come to the UK to see a real majority .

 

What is required for the passage of major legislation is bipartisan support - this has always been the case (since about the 1940s) and will continue to be the case.

 

The whole concept of bipartisan support is why he's doing this. It's not a pointless endeavour at all; it's absolutely vital to his success. To pass extreme legislation, winning over opposition-centrists is a must. But, of course, the problem is he hasn't succeeded. He's failed both to win them over and to pass the legislation.

 

Wouldn't be a problem except he explicitly promised to succeed where other presidents had failed in this task.

 

My point was that Congress, not in general, but in its current state, is screwed up. Obama CAN'T get bipartisan support and it's obvious why.

 

I'm not exaggerating when I say I can name at least a dozen people I know personally who refuse to support Obama because he's a Democrat (and simply for that reason) while PURPOSELY ignoring his values or ideas. And, seriously, they call that BEING PATRIOTIC. I can't make this up.

 

Conservatives in Congress is largely the same, as supporting anything the opposite party does anymore is nearly political suicide. Plus, so many of them have been bought out by lobbies that they won't even support their OWN party's legislation unless they can tack on special-interest pork.

 

Maybe... but neither of us know for certain. Fact is, it comes down to one of two conclusions:

 

1. He's corrupt and he's sold out the electorate
   
2. He promised the Earth and he's too incompetent to deliver a country
   

 

I'm certain you know, but our President can't do much of anything on his own (at least without starting a riot). Congress is half corrupt, half fundamentally delusional.

 

It's not conspiracy theory or evidence of a liberal mindset to say any of the above. Here, you basically have false hope and try your best or just accept things as they are.

 

The only way anything will get done is if the Democratic majority lets the Republicans propose legislation.

 

The flow chart runs like this:

 

Democrats Propose Legislation - Are the Democrats Still Democrats? - If Yes, Vote Against Bill.

 

And this comes back to the most important point and I can't help get the feeling some of the pro-Obama people in this thread are missing the whole constitutional arrangements of the states:

 

Midterms are this year. The Democrats won't do well (which I won't bother detailing here). So, you have the same corrupt/incompetent guy in power only without a unified government this time and still incaapable of striking up bipartisan support (even moreso since the Republicans will realise they have a lot more power than they did).

 

How on Earth can that possibly add up to being succesful for any length of time?

 

American politics demands swift and positive action from Democratic presidents. Those who fail, die by their sword (e.g. Carter).

 

Quote The Raven

Nevermore

 

As I've said, what does "swift and positive action" entail? What can Obama do that he isn't already trying? Everything he's tried has been swatted or watered down.

 

He hasn't abandoned his ideals. His ideals have been ignored.

 

NO Democrat can succeed without bipartisan support and there's no way they're going to get bipartisan support. To Conservatives, "bipartisan" means "what the conservatives want". Hell, Obama's tried that and they're still complaining about some sort of "liberal agenda".

 

Obama is NOT corrupt. If anything, he's the only sane branch left. (Did you see that the Supreme Court overturned legislation banning corporate funding of campaigns? WTF?)

 

Representatives and Senators just want to be reelected and don't really have any economic or political reason to actually seek to benefit the country. Unfortunately, benefiting the country doesn't get you as many votes as being "true to the party" these days.

[praguepride]

Honestly I think conservatives are just freaking out because he's black.

 

Seriously. They're ramming Barack HARD in conservative media for no real reason. Heatlh Care reforms have been in the works for awhile.

 

Now people are labelling him a tyrant, communist/socialist/facist over HEALTH CARE REFORM!?

 

I mean seriously, WTF? They're acting like he's passing a bill to mandate baby rape

 

I think they're trying to kick him to the curb now before he does something really radical like free the slaves or something

[The Masked Orange]

The senator who died recently spent a vast amount of his time in office trying to get people to support a healthcare bill. But because of media swing, when he did die a Republican was brought in.

 

One of the most pro-health reform senators was replaced by one of the most anti-health reform.

 

And the republican guy had posed naked for something ??? it was something scandalous and yet he still won. That just shows how much people have been told to dislike healthcare reforms.

 

If you look at the figures, I think it's somewhere from 40%-60% of people who voted Republican would benefit even more from the reforms, but don't quote me on that my memory is fuzzy. It just shows you how blind some people are in politics.

 

Obama got a lot of extra votes in the presidential election because he was black, and brought non-voting blacks into the voting booths. But he's starting to lose enough of the white vote for that majority to start to slip.

[BHK1978]

You know I hate to say this but the vast majority of the American voting public are stupid. This may not be a pc thing to say but that is how I feel. For the exact reason why MO just said, they are voting against what would directly benefit them.

 

Health Care would benefit most of us here in America but you have these teabaggers who say, "How dare the government interfer in my private life!"

 

I don't know the way this country is going I am thinking about moving to Canada...