US mid terms - what happened?

xibinim said:
Legalise cannabis? Surely it was never going to get close to been legalised?
Click to expand...

There was a lot of money put behind the 'no' campaign on prop 19. The wording of the bill was still to be decided (i.e. the actual form that the legalisation would take) but the people set to lose out included alcohol companies, tobacco companies, private prison firms and the like, despite the extra tax revenue it would have generated for the heavily indebted State of California.

In any case, it might have marked a major step forward in the "war on drugs" that not only harms lives in the USA, but also all across Latin America, especially Mexico.
 
Tombstone said:
I totally disagree with your assessment of "not even close". Irrespective of who created the expectations, the people believed the hype and created their own expectations that he could deliver change rapidly. So my original point stands.
Click to expand...

Nope, Obama promises free healthcare for all........ peoples expectations shockingly are free healthcare for all, the fact that Obama promised something beyond the realms of reality is where the expectations of massive proportions came from. Sorry but no one expected free health care for all out of the nothing, he promised it, no one expected soldiers to pull out of Iraq the week he was sworn in until he promised it. Expectation followed the promises, it was Obama/his camp that was promising the world, yes, voters were incredibly stupid to believe before his 4 year term was up an entirely new health service would be in place, it was completely unbelievable if you have half a brain, none of them would have even though about it had he not said it.


He promised rapid change, when he said free healthcare for all, and his initial plan, it wasn't for stages over the next say 10 years, he's consistantly "downgraded" his promises all along, thats why his current promises seem conservative to the expectations, he made promises he couldn't deliver on, and his new ones, basically in line with all other candidates, seem, "meh" at best.

LIke I said, while fighting for the nomination against Clinton, Clinton/McCann were saying out of Iraq by mid to late 2010, early 2011 iirc, Bush was saying pretty much that, Obama was promising, at first, to do it before he got in power by "fighting the man in congress", utter BS, people believed it. Right after he got the nomination he was suddenly less about getting out of Iraq the second he got in power, and more doing it in the first 6-12 months, closer to the elections he started promising the same withdrawal times as Clinton and McCann had always promised. McCann and Clinton knew when they could realistically get out, Obama hadn't a clue and basically made up a date, later he realised it was completely unfeasable and changed it. Same goes with healthcare, his promises are what people expect, his new and MUCH revised promises seem utterly dissappointing in comparison.

This is the stupid bit, Democrats/Republicans have NEVER failed to win the election when the current president had such low approval rate(I think once like over 100 years ago or something). The country always swings the other way, Obama basically had it sealed and if he was ALSO honest about what he could achieve people wouldn't be dissappointed in him or the democrats as badly as they were now. Had Clinton won the nomination with, you know, achievable promises, she'd have won the election just as easily and now no one would be dissappointed. Its all in what he promised, when, and how much his promises have changed. As I said, the ridiculous thing is he didn't need to promise anything to beat McCann, it was a lock, democrats had this hands down 2 years before the elections almost no matter who was in charge.


lunarwolf said:
lmao. have you been living in a bubble the last 30 years. In the immortal words of Reagan when asked about his solution to the deficit "it's big enough to take care of itself" :rolleyes: Democrats (Bill Clinton) reduced the deficit during his mandate. Then junior came along and it got out of control once again.

it was republicans who increased the size of government during the GW era and the ones who initiated the bank bailout. Obama just stepped in at the wrong time. He is no messiah but hardly the root of the problem :p
Click to expand...

Is Clinton in the democratic party now, no, he was the best President they'll have for the next 50 years, he was sensible and did sensible things.

Had Clinton been in charge when 9/11 happened, he would have gone to war, war + deficit not growing = never going to happen.

THe simple fundamental ideal behind Republicans is SMALL government, one of the biggest idea's behind the Democrats, is big government, as shown by Obama, Democrats(like Labour) want to give you everything, have government run everything, and in doing so, spending will go absolutely through the roof. You will get democrats who are closer to the middle, and Republicans too, you'll even occasionally get a Republican whose pro abortion, and a Democrat who wants to reduce the deficit...... thats life.

Bush wasn't great, but I really wouldn't go against the idea that the wars weren't well, in terms of job, spending, building, manufacturing in the USA, the wars prevented jobs being lost and kept the economy roling to some degree, as below, in general when theres a chance of a war defence companies will be pushing senators and governors to agree to one.

Its not as simple as looking 100% at two presidents and what happened in their reign, that doesn't change the long term policies/goals of the governments.

labour here are for HUGE public spending, that doesn't stop the fact that had they won they'd also be reducing the deficit, JUST NOT AS MUCH. Would republicans in the same time Clinton was in charge reduced the deficit, but more than the democrats, I don't know, maybe. Labour are still Labour, there was a clear difference in their own and Conservative and Lib Dem plans for cutting spending and reducing the deficit, the Conservatives wanted to cut most, lib dems a medium amount and Labour the least. Which still shows broadly speaking the aims and general trends of all 3 parties, yet all three would have cut spending. You're talking absolutes, a Democrat cut the deficit so he can't be for public spending, and thats nonsense, that ISN'T the real world, the differences come in where and how much the cut happens.

Likewise Conservatives have increased public spending before when its been appropriate, NHS has basically always had more spent on it most years since, well, it started, the difference again is in how fast both parties increase the spending added to the NHS.

YOu also missed a rather fundamental part in government which not nullifys both parties goals, but comprimises them, comprimise. Its often, we won't let you have X, unless we have Y, which is why democracy doesn't really work. Republicans come in, get 20 things their own way, and democrats get 20 things their way, the other guys get in power, they reverse the 20 republican things they didn't agree with but the Republicans then get 20 other things, often canceling out the things Democrats got while the Republicans were in charge, its a mess, its more about who wins now rather than making things better. This is also where so much waste comes in, Labour, we'll let you have that if you agree to the public ID scheme, Conservatives get in power, several billion pounds later spent on the worthless ID scheme, and its officially got the nail put in the coffin.

Government will grow, and shrink, for many different reasons/policies under both Democratic and Republican leadership because they'll win some fights, and lose others, thats life.

lunarwolf said:
don't mean to contradict all you say. so please don't take it personally. but the war on drugs has created more problems than it has solved, especially with latin americans, whose general population isn't a big fan of the US, not to mention that drug use/dealing has increased.

if you were to legalize then it would create jobs (except at the DEA/police, but some would be compensated by the FDA which would need more staff to regulate, etc...). i.e. phillip morris would plant pot in their tobacco fields, it would create new legitimate business opportunities, new jobs and the governement would get more revenue from taxes. not to mention that you would wipe out most drug related crimes pretty effectively and save money from having a significant reduction in the overpopulated prisons (off the top of my head i think about 3/4 of the US prison population is drug related)

if you don't believe me just look how effective legalizing can be. just look at alcohol prohibition in the 30's. history can teach us lessons.
Click to expand...

You didn't contradict anything I said, legalising drugs would create jobs, but wouldn't justify the hundreds of billions spent on the war on drugs, nor would it prevent lots of jobs being lost on the fight against drugs.

Again the big problem is its the military behind the war on drugs in general, and military = defence spending, and defence spending = basically bribing senators for votes on who gets contracts. Defence spending is HUGE business, the drug war is now a HUGE industry in the states, and the money it pumps into the military mean defence contractors aren't letting senators vote against a drug war anytime soon, thats just life.
 
Last edited:
Bit of luck this might urge Obama to actually do something, he's been a lame duck so far. Yes he's done a few things, but his hype was his own downfall.
 
Combat squirrel said:
Iv read some recent articles in new scientist highlighting how harmless bush was in comparison to the current republican fruit cakes, this is how serious a situation this is.
Click to expand...
I can see how that is probably very true. Christine O'Donnell seems very, very dangerous. Luckily she didn't win her election. Phew! :o

lunarwolf said:
hehe you have seen nothing yet, wait until Sarah Palin gets elected president; then we will really be in the dog house. Maybe Nostradamus did know something we didn't
Click to expand...
President Sarah Palin and Vice President Christine O'Donnell? *shudders* That'd start WW3 if those two got elected to run the US. :D
 
drunkenmaster said:
Nope, Obama promises free healthcare for all........ peoples expectations shockingly are free healthcare for all, the fact that Obama promised something beyond the realms of reality is where the expectations of massive proportions came from. Sorry but no one expected free health care for all out of the nothing, he promised it, no one expected soldiers to pull out of Iraq the week he was sworn in until he promised it. Expectation followed the promises, it was Obama/his camp that was promising the world, yes, voters were incredibly stupid to believe before his 4 year term was up an entirely new health service would be in place, it was completely unbelievable if you have half a brain, none of them would have even though about it had he not said it.
Click to expand...

Thats hardly the point though is it.. my point was that people thought he was like the messiah, got caught up in the hype and had expectations that he obviously couldnt deliver.

From what you've said there, you agree that people had elevated expectations of what he could do , where the expectations came from isnt the point, it never was my point, my point was only that they had those expectations, something that you agree on me with, so not sure why you are disagreeing with me that people had expectations. I know you like to argue on these forums but even so I cant see where you disagree with me.
 
StevieP said:
Slightly off-topic (or maybe not! :D) but IF Obama recovers nicely, wins the election for his second term and then obviously steps down 4 years after that - can he then go for the presidency again 4 years later??

I know you are limited to 2 terms in office in one go but is there anything that says he cant go for it again 4 years later since he's still one of the youngest presidents out there??

Just something I've always wondered.....

StevieP
Click to expand...

No, this is the reason that Clinton could not have been Hilary's second in command had she won the Democrat elections and then the presidency - if she'd fallen ill and unable to work, he would not have been allowed to take over.
 
MarcLister said:
President Sarah Palin and Vice President Christine O'Donnell? *shudders* That'd start WW3 if those two got elected to run the US. :D
Click to expand...

hat happens i hope many Americans will step up to the proud American tradition of shooting presidents :p
 
really loved the radio adverts they put out slagging each other off. Some of the dirt they dig up and broadcast is funny as hell.
 
MarcLister said:
President Sarah Palin and Vice President Christine O'Donnell? *shudders* That'd start WW3 if those two got elected to run the US. :D
Click to expand...
Thankfully, even if that did happen, the American federal presidential system was designed to prevent one element of it from dominating. The executive wouldn't be able to force through all of its (potentially) crackpot nonsense, if Congress and the judiciary were to have their heads screwed on straight.

I think the Founding Fathers somehow knew that the Tea Party movement would one day come about. :D
 
Tefal said:
hat happens i hope many Americans will step up to the proud American tradition of shooting presidents :p
Click to expand...
:D I hope the proud American tradition of letting foreigners have a pop at the president would also be adhered to.

simulatorman said:
hat happens all the time. :p
Click to expand...
Haha. :D

naffa said:
Thankfully, even if that did happen, the American federal presidential system was designed to prevent one element of it from dominating. The executive wouldn't be able to force through all of its (potentially) crackpot nonsense, if Congress and the judiciary were to have their heads screwed on straight.

I think the Founding Fathers somehow knew that the Tea Party movement would one day come about. :D
Click to expand...
I still think a Palin/O'Donnell team would be too powerful, and too damaging, for the rest of the world to depend on the legislature and judiciary to water down what they do. Palin wouldn't need legislature or judiciary approval to launch a nuke at Russia if the Russians wind her up by asking her when dinosaurs died out. And what would O'Donnell do if someone told her that the Mexicans were going to invade the US using mice with human brains?! :eek:
 
naffa said:
Hmmm... Good point, I hadn't thought of that.
Click to expand...
And if you thought that was a problem what about O'Donnell's inside out knowledge of the American constitution like the First Amendment separating government from religion? :D Or Palin being so well read she simply has no space left over in her brain to name a single newspaper she reads. :D
 
Crikey there's a lot of drivel and nonsense in this thread, primarily in one or two posts but I'll let you work out where I mean :p

This isn't really a 'win' for the Republicans, the US population think just as badly of them as they do the incumbents, also arguably the Tea Party did a cracking job at 'losing' the mid-terms for the Republicans in terms of control of the Senate - if some of their crazies like O'Donnell hadn't won the primaries those Senate seats would likely be Republican too.

And things like Prop 19 'losing' aren't necessarily the case if you look beyond the simple result - 45% of Californians voted for it which is a massive amount, and next time it comes round in 2012 it might well pass because enough of the old people that opposed it will have died - the support is 60/40 in under 40s in favour, 65/35 against in over 65s.

Pleased that Californians rejected the big-spending Republican candidates in Fiorina and Whitman, and also pleased that they rejected en-masse Prop 23 and stuck two fingers up at Big Oil.

Obama and the Democrats would be beside themselves with joy if Palin or some other Tea Party person was the Presidential nominee for the Republicans, or the Republicans leaned further towards the Tea Party views - the more moderates the Republicans alienate the better as far as the Democrats are concerned.
 
Last edited:
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top Bottom