Presidential Debate

Xel'Naga said:
Yeah, that's a stupid opinion he has. Instead of grading schools, try fixing schools, so that they'd all get a good grade upon review.

If you pull your children out of lower "grade" schools, that would mean that bad schools would only get worse as they lose funding. That's sort of backwards logic.
Click to expand...
It's why NCLB was a failure under Bush. You can't just cut off public schools from funding if they're doing poorly. You want to reward schools performing well, but you shouldn't cut schools that are doing bad. One thing I'm torn on is between state vs. federal funding. For higher education I think that should be more of state funding thing while federal funding should be up to high school. If the state wants to drop funding for a public university that should be their choice (even though it's dumb)
 
๖ۣۜZaldarius said:
hoeslty the president doesnt really matter all that much as far as getting things done, people vastly overestimate his true political power, if either one gets elected, and the house/senate change, nothing is going to get done because all they are going to do is argue with each other the entire fucking time and get nothing done, such is the case now with a demo president and senate, and republican HoR.
Also, since the president can only really veto bills, not suggest nor vote on them, I fail to see why it truly matters who is the president.
And as far as the school gradings go, as long as they continue to lower the "standard" of standardised testing, its not going to really matter what grading system they do. standardized testing has gotten lower and lower ever since the concept was started, not to mention schools dont even teach real knowledge most of the time anymore, they just teach you enough to pass that stupid fucking test. Its no wonder I was able to make straight A's through school while asleep
Click to expand...
He can suggest them, it just has to be introduced by someone in the house or senate. It matters because that veto power can overturn almost anything and it really requires a lot to override that. Also, he's the command in chief. He controls our military. One of the main purposes of government is to protect its people, so yeah, he's kind of a big deal. If they had found Bin Laden and Obama said not to kill/capture him they would have to comply. They would argue, but it's his call.
 
There both idiots, but the one has had four years to fix something and didnt. Sums up my thoughts.
 
The presidential puppetry does not matter. Congress holds the true power and they care nothing for the American people. They care for their coporate sponsors.
 
Xel'Naga said:
I would never question his intelligence by calling him retarded. Same with Bush.
Click to expand...
jr?
If so...
wait-youre-serious-spiderman-ckTlIw.jpg
 
๖ۣۜZaldarius said:
only because the republican controlled house made it to where nothing could happen
Click to expand...

The problem is people are too damn divisive. They look at the other side like an enemy and not a comerade. When you are working out any problem with friends, you will always think of solutions that work for everyone and are sensical. I'll tell you this and this is a fact.

Republicans are wrong when they think spending cuts alone will solve the problem

Democrats are wrong when they think tax increases alone will solve the problem.

This is what every argument boils down to. How do we pay for it? No matter what it is, that will be the question. While Democrats are a little more willing to budge on allowing spending cuts, the fact is nobody thinks that well GEE WHIZ MAYBE WE NEED BOTH IN THIS SITUATION

Neither side has all the answers and anyone that thinks that one side does is a fool.
 
The problem is, there's a two party system.

There was never supposed to be a two party system and there were laws put in place inorder to try and stop that from happening.
The founding fathers thought that if there were only two parties, people would vote for said party out of loyalty instead of the candidates political beliefs.
Having a variety, like they do in Europe, I think, would end the pull and tug, undoing and re-doing laws over and over.

Romney and Obama are either weak or mormon. I'm going to write in someone. Like Batman. Batman could run this country and no one would mess with us, goddamn.
 
takethepants said:
He had a majority for quite some time. The only reason the healthcare bill was passed was because of a democrat controlled house and senate.
Click to expand...
he had a majority for the first two years, then the house changed and nothing got done, people were happy when shit was getting done the first two years, then they all got pissed at him after that because nothing was getting done, only because the republicans made it to where nothing could be done, by not voting on anything that democrats tried to pass
 
๖ۣۜZaldarius said:
he had a majority for the first two years, then the house changed and nothing got done, people were happy when shit was getting done the first two years, then they all got pissed at him after that because nothing was getting done, only because the republicans made it to where nothing could be done, by not voting on anything that democrats tried to pass
Click to expand...

Just curious though. Why did the house change to Republicans if everyone was "so happy" in the first two years?
 
Catswithtophats said:
Just curious though. Why did the house change to Republicans if everyone was "so happy" in the first two years?
Click to expand...
because people vote with a party ticket, certain states (battleground states) as they are called, were more heavily campaigned in by republicans, with bullshit ads attacking things that should not be cared about in politics,
examples
A) sexuality
B) cheating on wife
and because of the idiocy of the average person in the US, they voted for them for stupid reasons like their looks, maybe a better question is how did bush JR win the first election while losing the popular vote? (the one against kerry by the way)
 
๖ۣۜZaldarius said:
because people vote with a party ticket, certain states (battleground states) as they are called, were more heavily campaigned in by republicans, with bullshit ads attacking things that should not be cared about in politics,
examples
A) sexuality
B) cheating on wife
and because of the idiocy of the average person in the US, they voted for them for stupid reasons like their looks, maybe a better question is how did bush JR win the first election while losing the popular vote? (the one against kerry by the way)
Click to expand...
Kerry lost because he's an idiot. They pretty much never come to CT since it's a pretty much guaranteed democrat win.
 
Catswithtophats said:
The problem is, there's a two party system.

There was never supposed to be a two party system and there were laws put in place inorder to try and stop that from happening.
The founding fathers thought that if there were only two parties, people would vote for said party out of loyalty instead of the candidates political beliefs.
Having a variety, like they do in Europe, I think, would end the pull and tug, undoing and re-doing laws over and over.

Romney and Obama are either weak or mormon. I'm going to write in someone. Like Batman. Batman could run this country and no one would mess with us, goddamn.
Click to expand...
Get the Green Party in there and you're golden. Seriously, social democracy might not be the solution to everything, but it will certainly help to alter the American political climate where you either vote right, even righter or not vote at all.
 
Catswithtophats said:
The problem is, there's a two party system.

There was never supposed to be a two party system and there were laws put in place inorder to try and stop that from happening.
The founding fathers thought that if there were only two parties, people would vote for said party out of loyalty instead of the candidates political beliefs.
Having a variety, like they do in Europe, I think, would end the pull and tug, undoing and re-doing laws over and over.

Romney and Obama are either weak or mormon. I'm going to write in someone. Like Batman. Batman could run this country and no one would mess with us, goddamn.
Click to expand...


More than two parties and you have situations like the Israelis or Italians or Canadians or the British. Coalition governments are generally ineffective unless led by a charismatic leader, with an emphasis on CHARISMA/POLITICAL WILL. Someone like LBJ or FDR, otherwise, pretty bad idea.
 
Metal Gear Awesome <skial> said:
More than two parties and you have situations like the Israelis or Italians or Canadians or the British. Coalition governments are generally ineffective unless led by a charismatic leader, with an emphasis on CHARISMA/POLITICAL WILL. Someone like LBJ or FDR, otherwise, pretty bad idea.
Click to expand...

Yeah, but Canada is doing REALLY well. You also forgot to mention Netherlands, Finland, Sweden, Japan, Denmark and Taiwan, that also have multi-party structures. All of them have better economies and social infrastructures than the US does right now... so no. They don't need to have a "charismatic leader".
 
Why is an important position like this decided by a popularity contest?
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Top Bottom
Back