Active Topics | Member List | Search | Help | Register | Login
The John Byrne Forum
Byrne Robotics > The John Byrne Forum << Prev Page of 1093 Next >>
Topic: US Presidential Election (Topic Closed Topic Closed) Post ReplyPost New Topic
Author
Message
Jason Czeskleba
Byrne Robotics Member
Avatar

Joined: 30 April 2004
Posts: 4639
Posted: 30 October 2008 at 11:16pm | IP Logged | 1  

 Scott Richards wrote:
I don't want either party to have complete control.  Having the Executive branch and a filibuster-proof Congress both under the same party is a recipe for disaster of Biblical proportions whether it be Democrat or Republican.


I think it's unlikely the Democrats will reach the 60-seat threshhold in the Senate.  But at any rate, why do you feel it would be so disastrous to have the Presidency and Congress controlled by the same party?  As I've noted before, the most recent example of this was quite scary, but historically an undivided Legislative and Executive branch scenario have yielded positive or neutral results.   There is no consistent trend that it always results in disaster. 

Let's see...over the past 100 or so years the following Presidents have had a majority in their own party in both houses of Congress (for their entire Presidencies except where noted):

W Bush (Jan-May 2001 and then 2002-2006)
Carter
LBJ
JFK
Ike (first two years only)
Truman (second term only)
FDR
Hoover
Coolidge
Harding
Wilson (first term only)
Taft (first two years only)
TR

How many of the above Presidencies could fairly be called "disastrous"?  Bush, certainly.  Carter, perhaps, but disastrous is kind of a strong word for the general malaise of his term.  Hoover most likely. 

On the other hand, at least two of the above (the Roosevelts) are rated as exceptional Presidencies, as was Ike.  Most of the others are seen as mixed at worst.   

Lincoln also had a majority in both houses of Congress his entire Presidency.  One might argue (based on Lincoln and FDR) that undivided government even works better during times of crisis.

A lot depends on the President involved.  Bush was a disaster when he was unchecked because he is unremittingly partisan and completely uncompromising.  I don't believe Obama is that way, and so I don't think he'd abuse the power of a Congressional majority in the way Bush did.



Edited by Jason Czeskleba on 30 October 2008 at 11:26pm
Back to Top profile | search
 
Joe Zhang
Byrne Robotics Member
Avatar

Joined: 16 April 2004
Location: United States
Posts: 12842
Posted: 30 October 2008 at 11:23pm | IP Logged | 2  

Good job, Jason. 
Back to Top profile | search e-mail
 
Mark Waldman
Byrne Robotics Member
Avatar

Joined: 16 August 2006
Location: United States
Posts: 1266
Posted: 30 October 2008 at 11:51pm | IP Logged | 3  

After the deficits racked up by fiscal conservatives since Reagan, give me some tax and spend Democrats.  Clinton's tax and spend turn turned a Reagan, then Bush deficit into a surplus, followed by Dub's spending spree.  Now a Democrat can try to change our luck. 

You'd think some of the talking heads and their puppets would learn.
Back to Top profile | search
 
Mike O'Brien
Byrne Robotics Member
Avatar
Official JB Historian

Joined: 18 April 2004
Location: United States
Posts: 10927
Posted: 30 October 2008 at 11:59pm | IP Logged | 4  

It's sad, on one hand, that her vote won't count now, but... this story made me tear up a little.

http://www.wciv.com/news/stories/1008/561510_video.html?ref= newsstory

Back to Top profile | search
 
Scott Richards
Byrne Robotics Member
Avatar

Joined: 22 September 2005
Posts: 1258
Posted: 31 October 2008 at 5:56am | IP Logged | 5  

And Scott, there's no way you were or ever have been a Democrat.

Are you wrong about everything else in your life too Joe?

This is the first time I've considered voting Republican since the first Bush Sr term.  I've voted Democrat every single election since then.  So feel free to eat your own crap.  Just don't serve it to others.
Back to Top profile | search
 
Scott Richards
Byrne Robotics Member
Avatar

Joined: 22 September 2005
Posts: 1258
Posted: 31 October 2008 at 5:59am | IP Logged | 6  

Let's see...over the past 100 or so years the following Presidents have had a majority in their own party in both houses of Congress (for their entire Presidencies except where noted):

That's not the same as filibuster-proof.  That's what this election looks like it will become.  Big difference.
Back to Top profile | search
 
Craig Markley
Byrne Robotics Member
Avatar

Joined: 16 April 2004
Location: United States
Posts: 3967
Posted: 31 October 2008 at 6:15am | IP Logged | 7  

Did anyone see this?  A guy (electrician) tired getting his political sign stolen hooked up his new sign to an electric pet fence.  There is a video of a kid walking up to this guys sign while holding the sleeve from another sign.  When the kid goes to grab the electrified sign he gets shocked (mildly) and runs off.

Back to Top profile | search
 
William McCormick
Byrne Robotics Member
Avatar

Joined: 26 February 2006
Posts: 3297
Posted: 31 October 2008 at 6:19am | IP Logged | 8  

I love it. The truly superior, informed, righteous open minded "liberal" left. Obama spent 6 million on an infomercial and the McCain campaign, not Palin, spent 150,000 on wardrobe for her. It doesn't belong to her, and plans are already made to donate it all to charity. The venom is unreal. She buys most of her clothing at a consignment shop in her town, verified by the media weeks ago from local interviews.

***********

You made my point. The CAMPAIGN spent the money on her clothes and hair. The money is donated to run a campaign. McCain picked someone who dressed so badly they had to provide her with new clothes? But since you don't seem to get it, I'll spell it out for you. Don't claim to be just a simple old hockey mom and then spend more in a month on clothes than the vast majority of Americans make in years.

 

I like this too, today someone from the Acorn organization came forward linking the Obama campaign to Acorn. They were feeding Acorn lists of people that had already donated the legal limit fedrally to the campaign, so that Acorn could solicit further donations.

**************

Source? I'd like to read about this.

 

So, how about the suits Obama and Biden are wearing? And I'll make an assumption here, not sure if I'm correct, that they own the suits they are wearing. Suits that run up to $1500.00. If I'm lucky, that's my tax return for the year.

**********

As long as they pay for the suits out of their own pockets. No one here is bitching about the suits McCain wears. Why? Because he piad for them himself. No one here complained about the outfit Cindy McCain wore to the National Convention. Why? Because she paid for it herself. Don't try so hard at missing the point.

 

Do you not understand the concept of campaigning? Are you saying Palin isn't putting out a message? She's making speeches. That's getting a message out(?). I don't even know how to explain this.

***********

The speeches are the message. Not her clothes. But the fact she can't give a speech without hateful bile and she can't conduct an interview without looking like a complete moron, I think you're onto something. Keep her well dressed and maybe the rest of the public won't see how woefully misinformed she is.

 

William, you went after everything else in the post, don't wanna swing at this one?

*************

I hadn't read anything about the part of your post you referencing. So I chose to ignore till I could look into it further. It looks like it may be true. And if so then something should be done.

http://www.nypost.com/seven/10272008/postopinion/opedcolumni sts/dubious_donations_135428.htm?page=0

Back to Top profile | search
 
Scott Richards
Byrne Robotics Member
Avatar

Joined: 22 September 2005
Posts: 1258
Posted: 31 October 2008 at 6:23am | IP Logged | 9  

You made my point. The CAMPAIGN spent the money on her clothes and hair. The money is donated to run a campaign. McCain picked someone who dressed so badly they had to provide her with new clothes? But since you don't seem to get it, I'll spell it out for you. Don't claim to be just a simple old hockey mom and then spend more in a month on clothes than the vast majority of Americans make in years.

Wait.  You just unmade your point.  Now did the campaign buy them or did she buy them?  You can't have it both ways.  She didn't spend anything.
Back to Top profile | search
 
Scott Richards
Byrne Robotics Member
Avatar

Joined: 22 September 2005
Posts: 1258
Posted: 31 October 2008 at 6:25am | IP Logged | 10  

The speeches are the message. Not her clothes

William, I know you aren't that naive.  For good or for bad, how someone looks plays a big part of how a message is perceived.  It's part of the message. 
Back to Top profile | search
 
William McCormick
Byrne Robotics Member
Avatar

Joined: 26 February 2006
Posts: 3297
Posted: 31 October 2008 at 6:32am | IP Logged | 11  

I like this too, today someone from the Acorn organization came forward linking the Obama campaign to Acorn. They were feeding Acorn lists of people that had already donated the legal limit fedrally to the campaign, so that Acorn could solicit further donations.

**********

http://www.pittsburghlive.com/x/pittsburghtrib/news/breaking /s_595810.html?source=rss&feed=2

I am assuming you are referring to this? The employee who got fired for putting personal charges on her organization credit card?

Back to Top profile | search
 
Jodi Moisan
Byrne Robotics Member
Avatar

Joined: 19 February 2008
Location: United States
Posts: 6808
Posted: 31 October 2008 at 6:35am | IP Logged | 12  

Scott I am sorry , I know you say you have been a democrat, I understand the picking of McCain because at one time he was a liberal republican but your constant defense of Sarah Palin, just does not ring of anything remotely democrat. As a democrat and a woman I can not even say the name Palin without almost vomitting.

You have campaigned harder for the republicans on this thread more than hardcore republicans. If you are a democrat, you aren't a good one!

Back to Top profile | search | www
 

<< Prev Page of 1093 Next >>
  Post ReplyPost New Topic
Printable version Printable version

Forum Jump
You cannot post new topics in this forum
You cannot reply to topics in this forum
You cannot delete your posts in this forum
You cannot edit your posts in this forum
You cannot create polls in this forum
You cannot vote in polls in this forum

 Active Topics | Member List | Search | Help | Register | Login