World Politics

Page 208 - Get up to date with the latest news, scores & standings from the Cycling News Community.
Status
Not open for further replies.
The problem in America today is that even the so called left-wing is far too neoliberal (in the capitalist sense, not social) and, therefore, in general goes right allong with the majority centrist ideology of the republican party. Thus any of Obama's reforms seemed even too "socialist" within his own party.

The country is furthermore in the hands of the financial and oil lobbies. Proof of this is found in the fact that Obama's policy toward Wall Street after the debacle was pitifully weak, so too was his inability to quickly pull out of Iraq and lessen the US military's presence in Afghanistan. Since the 70's and 80's the oil and financial lobbies have run America. The president is their tool. And, in the US system, the president has no authority beyond his constitutional limits, so he can only rule with consensus. A consensus that is often very hard, if not impossible to achieve, when policy goes against the interests of those really in power that manipulate the ropes of their political puppets. So much for democracy working. "Change, yes we can" was thus always a rhetorical campaign slogan, nothing mare, and was destined to set people up for great disappointment. I can't believe people could actually have so deluded themselves in thinking otherwise. It's truly amazing how, in the America of today, people can allow themselves to be led by their emotions rather than by reason!

And because of those lobbies running the show and because of a neoliberal capitalist plan to "discipline" workers since the 70's and because of off-shoring American manufacturing also as part of the neoliberal ideology, we have the disaster in the US job market today that Obama, especially given the crisis, has been able to do absolutely nothing about. Not that a republican could have done better, because the problem is "systematic" to the American economic apparatus, and not connected to left or right-wing policy making. For many unemployment has been devestating, and this has been a further point of animosity toward Obama.

Then there are those among the most "liberal" (socially from the left and not in the capitalist sense) who have not forgiven Obama for his ambiguous management of "climate change" and alternative energy (and his impotence before the black sea off the coast of Louisiana) and his failure to close the scandal of Guantanomo. Here again this shows us how much the oil industry commands in America.

On the other side of the fence we get those wacky, bigoted and underdeveloped both civilly and culturally republicans, who also run the Tea Baggers. In Arizona the ex-marine Jesse Kelly is so far to the right that he had accused Palin of supporting too many candidates that were "too moderate." :eek: In Kentucky Rand Paul (son of that senator Ron who wants to abolish the Fed) is a praiser of an absolute liberalism (the capitalist type, not social kind) that he had defined the criticisms of Obama toward BP for the black sea as "anti-American" and that one just can't interfere with the free will of Wall Street.

If anything US politics is a circus show, which always keeps us surprised and entertained. At times simply dumbfounded.
 
Jun 16, 2009
19,657
0
0
Spare Tyre said:
I saw the amount of hope vested in Obama (and the joy and relief after he was elected) as indicative of the despair people had come to feel during the previous (G W Bush) administration. That hope and sense of relief was felt around the world, as was fear at the possibility of McCain & Palin being in charge.

There was a similar feeling in Australia in 2007 when the Howard government was ousted after about 12 years. Many people felt they no longer needed to be ashamed of their country. Many people felt that society & government could now return to the more progressive and humane mode that had preceded this particular government. There was a huge sense of relief. But things had changed in the meantime, the new government was fond of PR spin so its credibility fell and they made some unwise strategic manoevres so the hope for a better future fell away. I'd be surprised if that sense of hope returns in a hurry. We are an extremely cynical electorate now.
What are you smoking, boy??

Just two questions for Americans

- Do the media get stuck into Obama as much as they have for leaders? From an outsiders observations they don't. I am not meaning to be racist here but is that partly because he is a black man? From the start I never really trusted the guy. Has a good speech writer but that is it. (just my observations)

- What has Obama really done for America other than spin bull****?

- If Obama tries to pass bill's now and cannot get the votes to pass them to the senate can he call another election like what may happen to Australia?
 
Spare Tyre said:
I saw the amount of hope vested in Obama (and the joy and relief after he was elected) as indicative of the despair people had come to feel during the previous (G W Bush) administration. That hope and sense of relief was felt around the world, as was fear at the possibility of McCain & Palin being in charge.
I dont know if you saw the full extent of Obamas support. People were famously fainting at his speeches, specifically speecches were he offered hope and change. European students were (according to our newspapers at the time) quitting their studies and flying to the US to campaing for him. His speech on race was at the time touted by his supporters and the media as the 2nd Gettysburg adress. I regretably dont enough about Australia to say what an adaquet comparison would be down under, but the equivalent here would be to compare a speech to Churchils " we will fight them on the beeches" or even to compare it to Shakespears Henry V St Crispens day speech.
He was pulling crowds like no one before. In June of that year he got 200 000 fans in Berlin.

Obama even believed in the hype himself with "we are the change weve been waiting for" and most surprisingly, this on the day he won the nomination
Generations from now people will look back and say that This was the moment when the rise of the oceans began to slow and our planet began to heal; this was the moment when we ended a war and secured our nation and restored our image as the last, best hope on Earth."
The reason i dont agree with you is that all these example, came not after he won the presidency but before he even won the nomination. Hillary Clinton didnt get this enthusiasm. Even at the points she was ahead no one was fainting at her rallies. Neither did John Edwards. It was all about Obama

Another measure of the Obama hype as i call it is that in the last 2 years, every time a new "inexperienced", good speaker, handsome, young politician comes from nowhere and gets a huge bump in the polls, they are immediately called "this countries Obama".

This was the case with Veltroni in Italy. He was called the Italian Obama. His hype began about a month before the election. Polls put him up. It died. He lost his election.
Mockus in Colombia, the Colombian Obama. His hype began about a month before the first round. Polls put him up. It died He lost his general election.
Clegg in the UK. The British Obama. His hype began mere weeks before voting day. Polls put him up. It died. He lost his general election.

And yet Obamas hype began not a month before his general election but about 10 months. And it was so big that it managed to sweep him to power.

There was a similar feeling in Australia in 2007 when the Howard government was ousted after about 12 years. Many people felt they no longer needed to be ashamed of their country. Many people felt that society & government could now return to the more progressive and humane mode that had preceded this particular government. There was a huge sense of relief.But things had changed in the meantime, the new government was fond of PR spin so its credibility fell and they made some unwise strategic manoevres so the hope for a better future fell away. I'd be surprised if that sense of hope returns in a hurry. We are an extremely cynical electorate now.
I find it interesting that you dont mention Rudd by name. In the US it was all about Obama. His skills, his talents, his promises. People were voting for him in the millions in primaries and appearing at his rallies in the millions. But in the Australia the phenomenon you describe seems not to be based on a hope that Kevin rudd, he and he alone, can be the change Australia has been waiting for, but more a happyness that Howard is out.
 
Jun 16, 2009
19,657
0
0
But in the Australia the phenomenon you describe seems not to be based on a hope that Kevin rudd, he and he alone, can be the change Australia has been waiting for, but more a happyness that Howard is out.
Well, the IR laws lost a lot of voters for howard, not because people thought he was an overly bad PM because the fact that he was our 2nd longest pm suggests otherwise. People finally started realising this year that Kevin '07 (stupid election slogan for Kevin rudd) and his labor party were no good.


just a question (probably stupid) about the american political system, if the republicans have majority in the house of reps, how can Obama be president if his party is in the minority?
 
auscyclefan94 said:
just a question (probably stupid) about the american political system, if the republicans have majority in the house of reps, how can Obama be president if his party is in the minority?
There is a difference between a president and a Prime minister.

In most countries a president is an independent entity to parliament.

The head of a parliament/ house is a prime minister.

In the American system congress only has so much power. The president is an independent entity who has a lot of power on his own.

In your system, there is no president. The head of state is instead the queen. Sine the main politician so to speak is the head of the parliament he is a prime minister.

Every country is different. Some countries have both presidents and prime ministers.

In france they have both and the president is most important. In Germany they have both and the prime minister ( known as chancellor ) is most important.
 
Jun 16, 2009
19,657
0
0
The Hitch said:
In most countries a president is an independent entity to parliament.

If a leader of a country is the head or a parliament/ house then hes called a prime minister.

In your system, there is no president. The head of state is instead the queen. Sine the main politician so to speak is the head of the parliament he is a prime minister.

Every country is different. Some countries have both presidents and prime ministers.

In france they have both and the president is most important. In Germany they have both and the prime minister ( known as chancellor ) is most important. In Poland they have both and are of similar importance.
Ok, thanks for clearing that up for me!:) So does Obama not belong in parliament but he still can introduce bill's into parliament?
 
Nov 2, 2009
1,117
0
0
The Hitch said:
<snipped>

I find it interesting that you dont mention Rudd by name. In the US it was all about Obama. His skills, his talents, his promises. People were voting for him in the millions in primaries and appearing at his rallies in the millions. But in the Australia the phenomenon you describe seems not to be based on a hope that Kevin rudd, he and he alone, can be the change Australia has been waiting for, but more a happyness that Howard is out.
Frankly I didn't think many people would know Rudd by name.

Yes, I agree. Rudd was seen as someone who had "leadership material" but not as someone who would single-handedly broker revolutionary change. Yes, it was a relief at having (we thought) rid ourselves of regressive values and addiction to neo-liberalism.

As you know in the Australian political system the PM is simply the leader of the party in government. Obviously we are not going to perceive such a person as an "all powerful" individual like the President of the US.

Yes, I have probably underestimated the hype element re Obama. There is so much hype and over-blown rhetoric in the world these days I tend to automatically disregard a lot of it. FWIW, IMO it was clear within weeks (days?) of his assumption of the presidency that he was going to disappoint millions of people: he had turned to the people who created the GFC (or whatever it's currently called) to fix it.

Re ACF's comments: Yes, the real vote-loser for the Howard government was his proposed Industrial Relations reform. We had a protest here in Melbourne in which hundreds of thousands of people marched. It took about 2 hours before the people at the back of the march actually moved. However, there were many other issues. Australian politics is becoming increasingly polarised, like the US.

ACF likes to forget that more people at the last election voted for the current government than for his party of choice and that his view is not shared by at least 50% of the population. Most people I know thought the Howard government was appalling on a range of issues. I was careful to use the phrase "many people" in my earlier post because I know it was a significant proportion of the population but not everyone.

And, ACF, I am a woman - don't call me "boy". ;)
 
Jul 17, 2009
4,317
1
0
Am I the only Republican who wants to see the Tea Party go away? Set us back another 40 years why don't you

Am I the only Republican who fears the Supreme Court overturning a 20-year-old ruling that had previously prohibited corporations and unions from using money from their general treasuries to produce and run their own campaign ads?

Am I the only republican who knows that the current GOP cares nothing about the middle class, but pretend they do?

Hopefully this so called majority will Strengthen true Republican Ideology and we can have a progressive agenda.


And I am sick and tired of BOTH parties telling us how to interpret their message...

Just give us the facts and let us do some homework and decide

In addition I am sick of BOTH telling us they speak for the people. BS They speak for corporations

many of you abroad out there looking in are just laughing at the good old USA. where all you have to do to get elected is convince middle America that those of color below your tax bracket will get what you already have...

I'm holding tight to the bottle
 
Mar 10, 2009
210
0
0
Hear, hear!

Boeing said:
Am I the only Republican who wants to see the Tea Party go away? Set us back another 40 years why don't you

Am I the only Republican who fears the Supreme Court overturning a 20-year-old ruling that had previously prohibited corporations and unions from using money from their general treasuries to produce and run their own campaign ads?

Am I the only republican who knows that the current GOP cares nothing about the middle class, but pretend they do?

Hopefully this so called majority will Strengthen true Republican Ideology and we can have a progressive agenda.


And I am sick and tired of BOTH parties telling us how to interpret their message...

Just give us the facts and let us do some homework and decide

In addition I am sick of BOTH telling us they speak for the people. BS They speak for corporations

many of you abroad out there looking in are just laughing at the good old USA. where all you have to do to get elected is convince middle America that those of color below your tax bracket will get what you already have...

I'm holding tight to the bottle
Hear, hear. Generally in-line with my sentiments.
 
Jul 14, 2009
2,499
0
0
Boeing said:
Am I the only Republican who wants to see the Tea Party go away? Set us back another 40 years why don't you

Am I the only Republican who fears the Supreme Court overturning a 20-year-old ruling that had previously prohibited corporations and unions from using money from their general treasuries to produce and run their own campaign ads?

Am I the only republican who knows that the current GOP cares nothing about the middle class, but pretend they do?

Hopefully this so called majority will Strengthen true Republican Ideology and we can have a progressive agenda.


And I am sick and tired of BOTH parties telling us how to interpret their message...

Just give us the facts and let us do some homework and decide

In addition I am sick of BOTH telling us they speak for the people. BS They speak for corporations

many of you abroad out there looking in are just laughing at the good old USA. where all you have to do to get elected is convince middle America that those of color below your tax bracket will get what you already have...

I'm holding tight to the bottle
I thought divide and conquer was done from the outside?? All the blue hairs that think the "new world" is not and that everybody under 30 changes jobs just because they want to is in the Tea Party. I listened to lots of people winners and losers after most of the returns were in,, the Tea Party people are totally wacked..talking about revolution and going back to the good old days. What good old days? Seeing people standing there talking about what it is to be an American dressed in head to toe in clothes that they bought from Walmart is pretty funny..not the good funny. Check the tags teaparty people it was made in China..there is nothing American about Walmart. I wish we had elected that witch woman so see could have put a spell on everybody registered in the South Hampton cyclocross..so I could get a result. I hope that wikileeker guy looks into all these big donations..and man rich women really got dumped on..the wrestler spent 45 million and didn't win Conn..same with Meg Whitman/ebay woman (net worth 1.3 Billion dollars) in CA @119 million and lost..wow..I hope it's just laughing that people are doing at us..
 
A

Anonymous

Guest
auscyclefan94 said:
Ok, thanks for clearing that up for me!:) So does Obama not belong in parliament but he still can introduce bill's into parliament?
He cannot introduce bills in congress. He can write them. Lobbyists can write them. You could write one. But only members of congress can introduce them. We don't have a parliament. The president guides legislation because he has the final say on any bill becoming law (unless his veto is overridden, which takes a 2/3rds majority...which means presidents are RARELY overridden.). He can veto or sign it into law. That is the part he plays. If the bill isn't what he wants, it doesn't become law. If it is, it is signed and becomes law.
 
A

Anonymous

Guest
But the real thing is my brothers
Your children are hungry
and starting to cry
Things are lookin' pretty bad,
I'm gonna' tell you why

Because the rent is too damn high!

THE RENT IS TOO DAMN HIGH!!!
 
Jul 17, 2009
4,317
1
0
Thoughtforfood said:
But the real thing is my brothers
Your children are hungry
and starting to cry
Things are lookin' pretty bad,
I'm gonna' tell you why

Because the rent is too damn high!

THE RENT IS TOO DAMN HIGH!!!
Cool but he hates homos ;)
 
May 13, 2009
3,093
0
0
With all the tea party guys in Congress now, at least we'll all get a healthy tax cut and a balanced budget. And we will pay off all the debt to China. And we'll strengthen our military. It'll be great.
 
A

Anonymous

Guest
Cobblestones said:
With all the tea party guys in Congress now, at least we'll all get a healthy tax cut and a balanced budget. And we will pay off all the debt to China. And we'll strengthen our military. It'll be great.
Yea, they are going to fix things right up.
 
Jun 16, 2009
19,657
0
0
Spare Tyre said:
Frankly I didn't think many people would know Rudd by name.

Yes, I agree. Rudd was seen as someone who had "leadership material" but not as someone who would single-handedly broker revolutionary change. Yes, it was a relief at having (we thought) rid ourselves of regressive values and addiction to neo-liberalism.

As you know in the Australian political system the PM is simply the leader of the party in government. Obviously we are not going to perceive such a person as an "all powerful" individual like the President of the US.

Yes, I have probably underestimated the hype element re Obama. There is so much hype and over-blown rhetoric in the world these days I tend to automatically disregard a lot of it. FWIW, IMO it was clear within weeks (days?) of his assumption of the presidency that he was going to disappoint millions of people: he had turned to the people who created the GFC (or whatever it's currently called) to fix it.

Re ACF's comments: Yes, the real vote-loser for the Howard government was his proposed Industrial Relations reform. We had a protest here in Melbourne in which hundreds of thousands of people marched. It took about 2 hours before the people at the back of the march actually moved. However, there were many other issues. Australian politics is becoming increasingly polarised, like the US.

ACF likes to forget that more people at the last election voted for the current government than for his party of choice and that his view is not shared by at least 50% of the population. Most people I know thought the Howard government was appalling on a range of issues. I was careful to use the phrase "many people" in my earlier post because I know it was a significant proportion of the population but not everyone.

And, ACF, I am a woman - don't call me "boy". ;)
Sorry, I guess we must talk in different circles. To say he was appalling is way over the top and clearly a single minded view.

btw, are you a teacher by any chance?
 
Nov 2, 2009
1,117
0
0
auscyclefan94 said:
Sorry, I guess we must talk in different circles. To say he was appalling is way over the top and clearly a single minded view.

btw, are you a teacher by any chance?
Um, a significant proportion of the population were not impressed with a range of Howard government policies. Certainly not my "single minded" view. I think he was a very able politician though, as in, he played the political game in a wily fashion.

Nope, not a teacher.
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Thread starter Similar threads Forum Replies Date
MarieDGarzai Non-Cycling Discussions 2
S Non-Cycling Discussions 12

ASK THE COMMUNITY

TRENDING THREADS