State of the Union

Mike, those folks that vote for the President come from many mind sets. The liberal left is mostly in the Democrat party and account for about 30% of the votes. The conservative part of the vote will mostly be in the Republican party and make up about 30% of the vote. In order for them to get above 50% these two main parties must also pick up votes from the other 40% of the voters as well. Also, the President is not elected by the people but by the Electoral College that is determined by the votes in the states where the electors live and help choose the President based on their states election. I believe it has only been two times in our history when a President was determined by the Electoral College rather than just by the popular vote. They do have rules for the Electoral College and they must be maintained. First Electoral College votes are directly tied to the votes. Then for certain reasons more votes are taken. I believe one is to avoid needing a public vote to avoid a tie situation. Somewhat complex and likely not many of us know any more than you do about our Presidents election and selection.s

A big problem with a President is that he is mostly a cheerleader for ideas and then the Congress is supposed to debate the ideas and put them into practice or modify them or refuse them. Very little this Presidents ideas have gone to Congress and most of the ideas the House of Representatives tried to bring to debate were not accepted by the Senate for review or debate. So really not much of this Presidents ideas have actually been through our processes and approvals. That leaves a lot of the current activities open for challenge in the future as the strength of the Congress shifts to conservative control or back to liberal control as the people change their votes. In the US Republic there is no way for one party to just lock out the other as in the US, even the losers of the election still are supposed to get heard in Congress to help keep our government for all the people, not just for the so called winners of the election.
 

Mike said:
Bob, I don't really understand the American Election System,
but I assume that the man voted in as President must have
received most votes, so that has to be 50%+ of the people
who voted.

These people voted for him because they like, him, his policies
and his "Get it Done" attitude, this to me means that they are
all of the same party as the other party followers would be voting
for their man too.

Having explained how I see it, I think that these same people will
vote for the next man/woman from his party if they add to their
policies, "I intend to try and finish off what President Obama has
started by adopting some of his ideas".

This new person is speaking to 50%+ of the people who like and
want these changes and surely has a good chance of keeping the
majority.

I will watch with interest how the next Presidential Election unfolds.

Mike.
Click to expand...

Again Mike, you are spot on. President Obama won both elections of 2008 and 2012 with near landslide numbers.. giving him a mandate to deliver the things promised. Republicans seem to forget that.. Instead they point to a Midterm election where they won Senate seats in Republican States with heavily gerrymandered districts pushing them into a temporary majority. A Midterm election in which only 37% of registered voters bothered to vote. NOW we have to keep them at bay for 2 years so they don't destroy the country until we can regain the majority in 2016... with 24 Republican seats to be defended, in States President Obama won in 2012, the 2016 General Election will look quite different from the midterms.

One thing I blame Democrats for in 2014 is that traditionally they don't vote in the Midterms... BUT the very rabid, and dwindling Republican Base comes out in droves. So a "mandate" is hardly present. AND our political system allows for the minority to keep the majority in check.. which IS or IS NOT a good thing.. depending on which side you come down on politically. In this case.. our country and the middle class depends on Democrats keeping the GOP majority from doing very much damage.
 
Here is a different chart that shows how the taxes get distributed and where most of them go. The three biggest recievers of the taxes are 'Treasury Dept', 'Department of Defense', and largest being 'Health and Human Services'. A separate group shown outside the budget is our 'Social Security' effort as it is supported by moneys from the people and the employers rather than by taxes.

http://www.federalbudget.com/

links >>[SIZE=+3]The U. S. National Debt Is [/SIZE][SIZE=+4]$18.1 Trillion![/SIZE] << links
[SIZE=-1]This is the web site of the National Debt Awareness Center (NDAC).
It is NOT a commercial web site; we don't use cookies, advertising, or java scripts.
This page [/SIZE] Last updated 01/02/2015 18:41:45
[SIZE=+1]Read the the latest budget and tax news. Just updated.[/SIZE]
[SIZE=-1][NOTE: Links on this web site with ".gov" suffix, are links to U. S. Federal Government web sites, our primary source of data.][/SIZE]
The bar chart comes directly from the Monthly Treasury Statement published by the U. S. Treasury Department. <---- Click on the chart for more info.

The "Debt Total" bar chart is generated from the Treasury Department's "Debt Report" found on the Treasury Direct web site. It has links to search the debt for any given date range, and access to debt interest information. It is a direct source to government provided budget information.
About Tax Code and the IRS.
--- "Deficit" vs. "Debt"---
Suppose you spend more money this month than your income. This situation is called a "budget deficit". So you borrow (ie; use your credit card). The amount you borrowed (and now owe) is called your debt. You have to pay interest on your debt. If next month you spend more than your income, another deficit, you must borrow some
 

Mike, you have just received two different explanations of Obama's so called wins and his responsibilities. I gave you the official way our President gets elected, not just an emotional one. The elected President does not have a mandate to make things happen at all. He is given a leadership way to operate and our Congress has the assigned job of debating the Presidents ideas and then authorizing them to be done, create budgets and responsibilities for doing so. Unfortunately our current government has not followed those guidelines so very little has been budgeted and implimented with authority from our Congress. Today we have a new Congress. Not likely will they be able to stop what the preceding government and Congress has done. But for now I believe they will attempt to stop any more cost to next years and after folks to pay. What will happen after our next election in 2016 is another story completely. Whether the next President is from the Liberal or Conservative mind set, makes no difference until known how they will act. A liberal that follows the proper path for our government will be better than what we have today so that remains to be seen.
 
MIKE.... an added thought.. In case you do not know what "Gerrymandering" is.. as I am not sure if this is done in your country but.. according to Wiki..

gerrymandering
Click to expand...
is a practice that attempts to establish a political advantage for a particular party or group by manipulating district boundaries to create partisan advantaged districts. The resulting district apportionment is known as a gerrymander (/ˈdʒɛriˌmændər/); however, that word can also refer to the process. When used to allege that a given party is gaining disproportionate power, the term gerrymandering has negative connotations.In addition to its use achieving desired electoral results for a particular party, gerrymandering may be used to help or hinder a particular demographic, such as a political, ethnic, racial, linguistic, religious, or class group, such as in U.S. federal voting district boundaries that produce a majority of constituents representative of African-American or other racial minorities, known as "majority-minority districts."
Click to expand...

in 2010 after the US census results came out.. Republican majority States set about rearranging Congressional districts to include majorities of people likely to vote Republican.. So the boundaries were redrawn insuring that the majority of House and Senate districts elected Republicans to the House and Senate. This is how they gained majority status in the Congress as the States up for elections were mostly very Republican States. Many of the elected Republicans are running in what is considered to be "SAFE" districts.. this simply means that the district has been gerrymandered to insure their victory... no matter what.
 
Oh and for sure, the Liberal left has never done such a thing. Ever. It happens far too often in all election districts. By whomever then has the power to do so.
 
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Gerrymandering




Printed in March 1812, this political cartoon was drawn in reaction to the newly drawn Congressional electoral district of South Essex County drawn by the Massachusetts legislature to favor the Democratic-Republican Party candidates of Governor Elbridge Gerry over the Federalists. The caricature satirizes the bizarre shape of a district in Essex County, Massachusetts as a dragon-like "monster." Federalist newspaper editors and others at the time likened the district shape to a salamander, and the word gerrymander was a blend of that word and Governor Gerry's last name.


The word gerrymander (originally written Gerry-mander) was used for the first time in the Boston Gazette on 26 March 1812. The word was created in reaction to a redrawing of Massachusetts Congressional election districts under Governor Elbridge Gerry (pronounced /ˈɡɛri/; 1744–1814). In 1812, Governor Gerry signed a bill that redistricted Massachusetts to benefit his Democratic-Republican Party. When mapped, one of the contorted districts in the Boston area was said to resemble the shape of a salamander.[1]
...........................
Democrat-Republican Party sounds like we were once all together. So why can't we work together these days? There were such parties way back and there still are such parties now. But I don't know if there are any similarities in purpose now.
 
I look at it this way. One party does it's best to serve the interests of the very wealthy (Republican), the other concerned with middle class, poor and elderly (Democrat). I am proud to be a member of the latter.
 
AZ Jim said:
I look at it this way. One party does it's best to serve the interests of the very wealthy (Republican), the other concerned with middle class, poor and elderly (Democrat). I am proud to be a member of the latter.
Click to expand...

I'm an Independent, and honestly, the more I learn about what the republicans have done, are doing and want to do in the future, the more left I lean.
 
AZ Jim said:
I look at it this way. One party does it's best to serve the interests of the very wealthy (Republican), the other concerned with middle class, poor and elderly (Democrat). I am proud to be a member of the latter.
Click to expand...

This is very true... BUT... I'm thinking it's the social issues that get people sucked into voting Republican.. Abortion, guns, gays.... AND this was intentional on the part of the GOP when they invited the Evangelical groups to stand with them and speak for them. That happened in the 90's I believe. http://theocracywatch.org/.

However, now it seems that the dog is wagging the tail here, and the old fiscal Republicans of the past.. as well as the Corporatist Republicans are having a very difficutl time controlling the factions they invited in to help get votes.. This is the basis for the fracturing of the party. Everyone is feeling the pressure to move more and more to the Right and the old school Eisenhower and Nixon Republicans are becoming extinct. We are quickly headed for a theocracy.
 
Thank you one and all for trying to educate me in US Politics.
I think that I get a glimmer of light at the end of the tunnel,
but it looks like it takes a big chunk of a lifetime to really get
it.

So why doesn't somebody "Gerrymander" the altered States
back to the Historical Boundaries and have a fairer election?

I can remember the USA overseeing some foreign elections
to ensure that the rules of "Fair Play" were followed, but your
explanations of recent "Shennanigans" in your own elections
do not seem to follow the same rules.

Still I think that the next candidate if they are shrewd enough
and they must be to get in the position to stand, can use all
the information that is available to their own good and to show
the opposition for what it really is, "Power Crazy" comes to mind.

Mike.
 
So why doesn't somebody "Gerrymander" the altered States
back to the Historical Boundaries and have a fairer election?
Click to expand...

Each US State has it's own legislature consisting of th House and a Senate.. Just like Washington. and Because those states have legislatures that are Republican controlled.. and they wouldn't allow it.
 
The democrats generally use social issues the most ' the repubs just answer the charges. Districts are continually changing their always will be a power struggle. There are no white and black hats here, in most case with voters "The Devil you know is better than the one you don't"
an outline of political mechanics forgets that it's about people. And that doesn't include the folks with either party. It's about money and what makes money. The dems. and Rep. both stack the deck so the very rich, who have no real political affiliation win. Until you can get to that point. When in doubt run in circles, scream and shout. As long as the people can get the folks to believe they change things, the smoke will never move.
 
As you say, some states are currently Republican, but then next election they may turn Democrat and back and forth over the years. It takes lots of changes to try to ensure we have good governments and hopefully no more of these renegade groups like we have had for 6 years and 2 more to go. Our government is supposed to work through our Congress, not just for a President that has done too much without a Congress discussion. When he is gone I hope that our next President, whether Liberal or conservative will start operating as they should, through our Congress. Spending all our taxes and billion's more without our Congress have the chance to study and judge is way wrong to begin with and for some to be so happy with that action is very dismaying. Our government should be looking our for our future and not just for their re election.

As I pointed out earlier, party is no guarantee of the voters status and convictions. Democrat party is made up of Liberals, some conservatives, maybe a few uncommitted ones. Same with the Republicans as they have the conservatives, a few Liberals, some libertarians, very conservatives, and some uncommitted that will vote their way. Neither the Republican party or the Democrat party have enough folks to actually hold the elections based on their memberships only. It all depends on how the people voting feel on election day.
.............
Well, it looks like rt3 popped in with his thoughts while I was still typing. Interesting that it looks like we are on similar paths.
 
One thing we should All keep in mind is that there are NO Poor Politicians. The vast majority of those in Washington are millionaires...and to think that any of them will vote for anything that reduces their net worth is wishful thinking. They may "talk" a good story, but when it comes time to propose or vote for legislation, their Greed Always comes into play.

Here is a listing of the 50 wealthiest politicians in Washington...and it is interesting to note that 8 of the top 10 are Democrats.............

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_current_members_of_the_United_States_Congress_by_wealth
 
Ah, yes but they are Philosopher Kings! Which makes it right, you know in your heart its right, it's the right thing to do, and the end justifies the means.
 
It matters little to me that congressmen and women are millionaires as long as their votes help me and others survive in a climate where the Republicans are making ever effort to hack into Social security and Medicare.
 
I don't think that because a politician is rich that they will necessarily vote that way. Look at Kennedy.. I believe being in the Senate pays a salary of $179,000 not chicken feed, but not what Corporate millionaires and billionaires make. I think it's ideology.. and what they believe is important and just.
 
AZ Jim said:
It matters little to me that congressmen and women are millionaires as long as their votes help me and others survive in a climate where the Republicans are making ever effort to hack into Social security and Medicare.
Click to expand...

How are the Republicans trying to hack into SS. That is a worker and employer paid system. Not a taxpayer place to get riches.

Medicare might need some meddling. My medical was once paid by my employer. Not so since Obama took over. My employer just backed down to a fixed number and the rest must come from Obama care. My medication amount was more than before Obama care to start with and this year it has gone up again. Where is my good from this so called better program? I see none. Time for more reviews? Likely so.
 
The democrats talk a pretty good game.

Tax and spend and I don't want their free cheese.
Oh: they still have not discovered that nothing is free.
 
QuickSilver said:
obviously you have not read a word.
Click to expand...
LOL, I went back and read the posts.

The republicans are for the rich.............. Wrong
The democrats love the poor................. Yes they love poor dumb people the best
The republicans are going to take away SS and Medicare.................. That would be political suicide.
I like people that save their money instead of blowing it on vote getting measures.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.

Back
Top