Left vs Right and Beyond

[iNow]

If B. Obama intended to do anything about climate change, why didn't he announce this lofty goal at the beginning of his presidency, and implement it DURING his presidency ?

He's not a king, nor some tyrant or autocrat. He relies on congress to get most work done and he already spent most of his political capital / poisoned most of the needed working relationships when implementing the affordable care act. Also, last I checked he still has 16 months left in office so has, in fact, implemented it during his presidency.

[overtone]

I expect it from Overtone as he sees everything as a Republican ( conservative ) scheme. - - -

- - - -

So, although a matter of degree, how is that different from Overtone's evil and deceitful Conservatives of the last 40 yrs ?

If you are trying to present Reagan era Republican schemes as "conservative" and Obama as some kind of leftwing or ostensibly leftwing politician, you are very far away from Overtone's posting.

Obama's ideology is to the right of Eisenhower's, according to Overtone.

 

If B. Obama intended to do anything about climate change, why didn't he announce this lofty goal at the beginning of his presidency, and implement it DURING his presidency ?

Because he couldn't, or figured he couldn't.

Edited August 9, 2015 by overtone

[John Cuthber]

 

 

If B. Obama intended to do anything about climate change, why didn't he announce this lofty goal at the beginning of his presidency, and implement it DURING his presidency ?

 

He may have felt that he needed to try and sort out the mess that Bush had made of the economy first.

You can't do everything first.

Edited August 9, 2015 by John Cuthber

[MigL]

Yeah, that's another popular political tactic.

Always blame your predecessor.Not that there isn't reason to, sometimes.

 

Just because I don't like to always pick on Americans...

Our Liberals here in Canada, implemented the Kyoto Accord and signed Canada up as level 3 member of the F-35 development consortium by contributing $200 mil.

They then did nothing about climate change for 14 yrs, as a matter of fact our CO2 emissions went up in that time period,

For the last decade, while the Conservatives have been in power, the CO2 emissions have been steadily dropping, but liberals ( party, media, people ) have been protesting that the Government isn't doing enough because they're not signing on to intenational CO2 reduction programs. Butthe real hypocrasy is the claim that the Conservatives are buying the F-35, a much too expensive aeroplane, when the Liberals put us in the program to begin with. Without a tender.

 

Now, before you go off on me, I'm not excusing the Conservative' behaviour; They have a lot to answer for also

But the point is they both use the same tactics.

And us dummies fall for itevery time.

[overtone]

But the point is they both use the same tactics.

In the US, they don't. That is, not from a reasonable point of view. For the past thirty years, and entire generation, the Republican Party has been in class by itself with respect to certain "tactics", with comparatively negligible contribution from the Democratic Party.

 

 

"Yeah, that's another popular political tactic.

 

Always blame your predecessor.Not that there isn't reason to, sometimes."

 

Regardless of its popularity, predecessor blaming rests ultimately on fact - the actual sequence of decisions and events.

In Obama's case, it's just history - not "blaming". His predecessor has yet to be saddled with half the blame due him (almost the entire Federal debt accrued since Reagan, for starters).

Edited August 9, 2015 by overtone

[Ten oz]

@ MigL, I wish we had more parties. I wish there were at least 4 parties. I don't think here is also huge differences between Democrats and Republicans on everything. However small difference expanded out over time and distance wind up being huge. The difference between 10 mph and 10.5 mph isn't much but if a couple of people travel at those speeds for several hours they will wind up in different locations completely out of sight from one another.

I once believed the two parties were basically the same. In 2000 I supported Gore but was thrilled at the success Nadar was having. I also feel Bush would be an okay President. His old man had been pragmatic. I figured Bush was a moderate. I learned my lesson. Elections do matter and the parties are not the same. Perhaps on a day to day level when all is well there is little day light between them but when things happen and the pendulum begins to swings they are differences and those differences have real effects on peoples lives. The patriot act, funneling military equipment to local police departments, the tax cuts, the "fixes" to medicare that weren't paid for, and etc were terrible policy. Of cousre that is all small stuff compared to the destablization of the middle east. Over a million people killed, millions of refugees crossing borders, the intentional undermining of leaders throughout the region. Bush was terrible and that isn't just partisan talk. That isn't just Dem vs GOP bickering. Bush hurt my country, the interior Middle East, and did harm to the whole worlds economy. Perhaps he was just a bad apple. I have no doubt that McCain would have been different had he beat Bush in the 2000 primary. Doesn't matter. Point is whom one supports and what policies they espouse matters. Simply saying they are all the same sort of washes ones hands of responsibility. We (U.S. citizens) are all responsible for the things we allow our leaders to do. We elect them.

[John Cuthber]

I wish we had more parties. I wish there were at least 4 parties. ...

The difference between 10 mph and 10.5 mph isn't much but if a couple of people travel at those speeds for several hours they will wind up in different locations completely out of sight from one another.

In a very real sense, I wish you had two.

If one group sets out heading 5 degrees east and the other 5.0001 degrees east, it isn't long before they lose sight of where west is.

[MigL]

That would certanly be a welcome development Ten oz.

If Americans had to govern by coalition governments, it might teach their politicians to work together a little better.

[overtone]

The Democratic Party in the US is a coalition. The Republican Party used to be, but has been more tightly organized and focused in the service of a particular goal: getting rid of the New Deal.

 

The two Parties are not symmetrical. The Republican Party has become the tactical arm of one political faction: rightwing authoritarian, militarized corporate capitalist. (Once, there was a name for that faction, spoken with pride.)

 

And they have screwed up, in the classic way history shows us is typical for that faction: they always forget that the mob they finance, arm, and set loose on their enemies has an agenda of its own.

 

http://www.patheos.com/blogs/bristolpalin/2015/08/the-new-gop-outrage-industry-lessons-in-decency-from-erick-erickson-and-fox-news/

 

What's all this belated yak about decency and so forth? That train left years and years ago. C'mon guys, we've got an election to win!

Edited August 12, 2015 by overtone

[Willie71]

"This is the reason almost half of voters don't bother to vote. they've been lied to and disappointed so often", half of all eligible voters never voted to begin with. They have never been let as they have never supported any candidate or party. In my opinion there are many in political circles that look to keep it this way and promote the idea that politicians can not be trusted. Apathy can be a useful tool. The less eyes watching allows for more freedom. In truth we don't need to trust politicians. That is the beauty of our system. Everything our politicians do is a matter of public record. If we truly care to know we can look and see who did or did not do what.Hillary Clinton, Jeb Bush, Scott Walker, Bernie Sanders, and everyone else running for president has an enormous public record we are all able to review if we are interested in how they might govern. Also I think most politicians do tell it like it is with regards to how they would go out doing the people's business. When certian politicians talk tough on foriegn policy I don't think it is just fluff. I think if elected they would be tough and lead us into more wars. Of course when describing the policies of others, their competitors, they're prone to exaggeration and distortion but under those circumstances who isn't? That is the nature of competition across the board in business, sports, dating, and etc. I personally believe that the apathy of eligible voters who choose to tune out and just enjoy the spoils of living in such a wealthy nation without bothering to understand its operations is a bigger problem than the trustworthiness politicians.

http://www.lousycv.com/wp-content/uploads/2014/04/divide-and-conquer-left-vs-right.jpg