Jimmy Carter says American is an oligarchy

Now why would Obama need a veto proof majority when he is the one with the veto power? Would he want to seek a congressional override of his own vetos?

 

He never had a filibuster proof majority.

And the right used the filibuster like chewing gum. It got to the point that they just started threatening it and bills would stall.

 

That never happened.

 

This is the wrong thread to post that discussion as it would derail the topic.

Here is a thread that is more on topic.........

http://www.politicalforum.com/showthread.php?t=413800&p=1065127686#post1065127686

Click the link and respond there and we'll discuss it.

 

just because the coal plants failed to keep up with technology and handling their waste is no reason it wasn't a GOOD idea back in the 70s... and just because other democrats essentially screwed up this democrats idea, doesn't mean it still wasn't a GOOD idea back then... I may argue with democrats more than republicans, but when a democrat had a good idea I have to acknowledge it was a good idea... just because the execution was horrible in the long-run doesn't mean it still wasn't the right call... I'd like to have seen coal change over the decades, unfortunately it did not, it kept the same business model and democrats are regulating them out of business essentially putting us back in the same spot... ironic... one democrat gets us out, the other democrats put us back in... love it... lol

 

Why then wasn't the technology required like the increasing gas mileage and decreasing emissions for autos?

 

I used to think, if only we had term limits, to force new faces and ideas into politics... but then I started thinking... will it really force new ideas or just new faces... because they will change the strategy, and change the dynamics who they give money directly to, and this will lead to superpacs becoming the donation heavens for the party, rather than the person... so will it really give the people more, or will it switch from the politician to the party... and I just can't help but think we'll end with much the same except now the politician will mean even less as they stack the power behind a few groups run by the very people we just booted out of office...

I mean I don't want to discount it will have some effect, in theory it should, but I'm just not sure I think it'll have as much impact as I once thought... granted if we think the president shouldn't be allowed more than two 4-year terms, maybe we shouldn't allow any office to have more than two 4-year terms... we need some way to split up the elections so no one party can control two branches with one election... but I hate the idea of everyone getting a 6-year term with us voting every two years just to split up the elections...

one thing I would like to see introduced... if you run for a primary battle as a republican or democrat, you are now ineligible to run as an independent... why should someone get a second chance when they lost the first just because they want to huff and puff and blow the house down if they can't win... and it would be super nice if we couldn't have declared candidates until january 1st of the year of the election... so all this primary junk and all the presidential junk would have to take place next year... compress the time periods down so we don't have these energizer-bunny campaigns... we simply don't need that much time... we don't... with todays interactive media and instant notification, we're being drowned and less people care... plus this would take some of the cost out, well in theory, since they wouldn't spend another what 6-8 months campaigning before january 1st of 2016?

but something does need to change...

 

who said that wasn't a good idea also? I didn't...

just because he didn't give us all the good ideas doesn't mean we shouldn't apply those as well, or add on to the good ideas... if we had the technology back then to do what we can today, yeah he should have thrown on all of those ideas as well... no brainer... but lets be honest, technology has changed dramatically since the 70s... you know from the days when computers were the size of refrigerators and now its the size of a hand, and it does 10000x more... I'm sure if we had that back then it very well would have been his ONLY idea instead of switching to coal... so he probably wouldn't have pushed coal if he saw what we could do today...

I can only imagine back then he would have mandated wind/solar/bio instead of coal... (and this is a negative imagination, as power would have been so costly to the average person I doubt we'd even have computers or many of the things we enjoy today as a common practice in excessive amounts)

cheap energy is the greatest impact to poverty... thats why I find it so ironic liberals now demand these poverty stricken nations don't use coal and instead use renewable energy which has a much higher cost... its almost as if they want to keep people in poverty rather than let them follow the path we did to get out of it to the point where we can now afford to invest in cleaner technology... but if Carter didn't give us that boost out, we wouldn't be where we are today... that time period is just filled with so many ironies from today it makes me giggle thinking about him as a democrat and democrats today... I know people bash the guy, but imagine if we put some of the democrats of today back into his spot, wow I bet we could only imagine the difference in actions...

 

Well then, I assume you know the difference between a veto proof majority and a filibuster proof majority. Personally, I wish the republicans would use the filibuster more then they do. The more of Obama's fascist policies they stall or stop, the better.

 

Thats fine, but then you cant blame Obama for "failing". If one side has as their sole agenda to "stop Obama", then how is he to blame?

You now have something beyond stagnation in this country. Nothing is getting done, and all that time our roads are falling apart, bridges falling, wages dropping, and all of it for what ? Power ? Its ridiculous because the brunt of that pain is being born on the backs of the working class. You and I, and yet you somehow support that ?

Obama in the beginning did try to make change that was good for the working class. He was stopped at every turn. No matter what he wanted, it was bad. And the amazing thing was that the talking heads on the right somehow convinced the right wing masses that forcing everyone to pay for their own healthcare was a bad thing. Which just 2 years ago the right wing talking point was "the cost of healthcare was being driven by people not paying their fare share of the costs".

Don't misunderstand, Obama is a corporatist, in the beginning he was trying to do good for the middle class, but in the end he paid his benefactors back with TPP.

 

If you think their is an ounce of difference between the Democrats and the Republicans then you have your head hopelessly implanted in your anal orifice. Until you realize that the Democrats and Republicans are 2 parts of the same whole, you are just another one of the people of Walmart stumbling through life in a stupor of ignorance.

 

Jimmy Carter------seriously? LOL

 

You have to have 60 votes on the Senate floor to be able to vote on a bill,which requires only 51 votes after it is brought to the floor. Obama never had 60 and since McConnell held a meeting the night Obama was sworn in vowing to make Obama a one term President he was lucky to get anything passed. But the President has done pretty well, considering the nay Sayers.

- - - Updated - - -

That was mentioned in this thread.

 

I would say laws outlawing gay marriage because the far righters dont like gays to be "real discrimination". The GOP has a long history of passing laws to discriminate against anyone they do not like.

 

BS

More BS. The statute that was overturned include prison time. Prison time for political speech that had been deemed illegal under the overturned law. As SCOTUS stated in their ruling:

A film that Hillary didn't approve of was aired, and if she had prevailed those that showed the film she objected to could have been imprisoned. January of 2016, anther film is being released, the story of Benghazi through the eyes of the American fighters that fought for 13 hours to protected American lives. One died, as did our Ambassador and two others. If Hillary had her way, the film would probably not air. Citizens United was about whether you could be imprisoned for nothing more than engaging in Political Speech...

As well as the instant rise of a politically driven out of control IRS, top IRS officials taking the fifth, because answering truthfully could implicate them in criminal conduct. The refusal of the IRS to turn over information to Congress, the mysterious destruction of hard drives.

It is Ironic that you, in the defense of the First Amendment would advocated Prison for nothing more than engaging in free speech.

 

Thats not really true. What Citizens United did in the context of your post is to redefine truth in advertising. It basically said that you can say anything you want in the political landscape with impunity. It said that 501c groups cannot be held to the same standard as the FEC holds the candidates to. The change in the law was the definition of "political speech".

What Citizens United did was to fundamentally change the standards by which which we vote for politicians. It allows "speech" to be consequential in determining winners and losers, but inconsequential in the eyes of the law. It allows you to say that Hillary Clinton "eats planned parenthood harvested baby parts" to skew the electorate, without being held accountable. Try saying something like that about Monsanto, or any other corporation for that matter and you would be sued for Libel, yet in the political arena that is now legal.

I find it funny that the right keeps trying talking about Bill and Hillary receiving "foreign donations", and then in the very next sentence supporting Citizens United. Its an amazing thing to me that you can claim Hillary is bad for receiving foreign donations, and then in the very next sentence supporting the law that allows that very thing to happen.

 

Nonsense. The ruling did not affect the prohibition on foreign corporate donations to American campaigns.

 

You agree that America is an oligarchy and then go on to explain why you're a Democrat?

lmao?

 

http://www.politicalforum.com/rules.php

Read #5.

 

Read the opinion of the Supreme Court Citizens United. http://www.supremecourt.gov/opinions/09pdf/08-205.pdf
The opinion starts on page 8. If you still don't understand. Ask.

 

It allows DARK MONEY

Please tell me how you can know if DARK MONEY is foreign ?

Saying that it didn't change the law is one thing, but to say it did "not effect the prohibition of foreign corporate donations" is ludicrous and you know it. It basically rendered any laws prohibiting them useless because now they are literally untraceable and you know it. Your just being obtuse

 

Thank you. I will be more careful next time.

Am a returning member so did not realize.

 

Short answer? Because the Auto companies and Oil companies did not want decreasing the emissions. Their lobbyists fought like heck to stop it.

 

"don't like gays" is something that is neither measurable nor traceable. I was talking about officially implemented gender and race based special privileges.

 

It's pretty damn traceable when almost every politician who pushes for laws against gay marriages publically states they do so because their god says gays are abominations. They wish to ban it because it does not fit their person religious views.