(06-21-2014 12:08 PM)UM2001GRAD Wrote:  Fiscal responsibility and social liberalism are hallmarks of Democratic presidents. No need to overcome it when you already have it.

It is not the Democrat Presidents I fear.

Then register Dem and vote for the most conservative candidate.

(06-21-2014 12:13 PM)Fo Shizzle Wrote:  

(06-21-2014 12:08 PM)UM2001GRAD Wrote:  Fiscal responsibility and social liberalism are hallmarks of Democratic presidents. No need to overcome it when you already have it.

It is not the Democrat Presidents I fear.

What are you saying?

(06-21-2014 12:08 PM)UM2001GRAD Wrote:  Fiscal responsibility and social liberalism are hallmarks of Democratic presidents.

Not this one.

Tax-and-spend is no more fiscally responsible than deficit-and-spend. And nobody wants to address the spend seriously. It's kill the other guy's sacred cows, but mine get bigger, on both sides.

I will agree that democrats favor social liberalism, and republicans social conservatism.

(06-21-2014 05:51 PM)Old Dominion Wrote:  

(06-21-2014 12:13 PM)Fo Shizzle Wrote:  

(06-21-2014 12:08 PM)UM2001GRAD Wrote:  Fiscal responsibility and social liberalism are hallmarks of Democratic presidents. No need to overcome it when you already have it.

It is not the Democrat Presidents I fear.

What are you saying?

The fcking Dems in Congress that give us such gems as the ACA. Last time I checked...the POTUS does not write laws.

(06-21-2014 08:42 PM)Fo Shizzle Wrote:  

(06-21-2014 05:51 PM)Old Dominion Wrote:  

(06-21-2014 12:13 PM)Fo Shizzle Wrote:  

(06-21-2014 12:08 PM)UM2001GRAD Wrote:  Fiscal responsibility and social liberalism are hallmarks of Democratic presidents. No need to overcome it when you already have it.

It is not the Democrat Presidents I fear.

What are you saying?

The fcking Dems in Congress that give us such gems as the ACA. Last time I checked...the POTUS does not write laws.

Agree totally. I think most democrat presidents have been far better then democrats in congress. Given that I don't care for republicans on social issues, and therefore don't want one-party government of either flavor, I think the best result may be republicans controlling congress with a democrat president.

I'd probably rank them this way:

Best-republican congress with democrat president
Next-democrat congress with republican president (worked okay with Reagan and GHWB, although not worth a damn with GWB)
Next-republican congress with republican president, narrowly edging out
Worst-democrat congress with democrat president

I'd take 8 years of Hillary with republican majorities in both houses, plus same configuration for last two years of Obama, and not even look at what's behind the other doors, thank you, Monty. On the other hand, 8 years of Hillary with democrats controlling congress, and I doubt we'd have a country worth saving.

(06-21-2014 08:53 PM)Owl 69/70/75 Wrote:  

(06-21-2014 08:42 PM)Fo Shizzle Wrote:  

(06-21-2014 05:51 PM)Old Dominion Wrote:  

(06-21-2014 12:13 PM)Fo Shizzle Wrote:  

(06-21-2014 12:08 PM)UM2001GRAD Wrote:  Fiscal responsibility and social liberalism are hallmarks of Democratic presidents. No need to overcome it when you already have it.

It is not the Democrat Presidents I fear.

What are you saying?

The fcking Dems in Congress that give us such gems as the ACA. Last time I checked...the POTUS does not write laws.

Agree totally. I think most democrat presidents have been far better then democrats in congress. Given that I don't care for republicans on social issues, and therefore don't want one-party government of either flavor, I think the best result may be republicans controlling congress with a democrat president.

I'd probably rank them this way:

Best-republican congress with democrat president
Next-democrat congress with republican president (worked okay with Reagan and GHWB, although not worth a damn with GWB)
Next-republican congress with republican president, narrowly edging out
Worst-democrat congress with democrat president

I'd take 8 years of Hillary with republican majorities in both houses, plus same configuration for last two years of Obama, and not even look at what's behind the other doors, thank you, Monty. On the other hand, 8 years of Hillary with democrats controlling congress, and I doubt we'd have a country worth saving.

Seriously, what configuration did Clinton have and how would you rate his tenure?

(06-22-2014 08:14 AM)Old Dominion Wrote:  Seriously, what configuration did Clinton have and how would you rate his tenure?

Republican congress, democrat president for last 3/4 of his presidency.
And he and Reagan are the only two presidents in the last 50 years whose tenures I would rate highly.

(06-21-2014 08:53 PM)Owl 69/70/75 Wrote:  

(06-21-2014 08:42 PM)Fo Shizzle Wrote:  

(06-21-2014 05:51 PM)Old Dominion Wrote:  

(06-21-2014 12:13 PM)Fo Shizzle Wrote:  

(06-21-2014 12:08 PM)UM2001GRAD Wrote:  Fiscal responsibility and social liberalism are hallmarks of Democratic presidents. No need to overcome it when you already have it.

It is not the Democrat Presidents I fear.

What are you saying?

The fcking Dems in Congress that give us such gems as the ACA. Last time I checked...the POTUS does not write laws.

Agree totally. I think most democrat presidents have been far better then democrats in congress. Given that I don't care for republicans on social issues, and therefore don't want one-party government of either flavor, I think the best result may be republicans controlling congress with a democrat president.

I'd probably rank them this way:

Best-republican congress with democrat president
Next-democrat congress with republican president (worked okay with Reagan and GHWB, although not worth a damn with GWB)
Next-republican congress with republican president, narrowly edging out
Worst-democrat congress with democrat president

I'd take 8 years of Hillary with republican majorities in both houses, plus same configuration for last two years of Obama, and not even look at what's behind the other doors, thank you, Monty. On the other hand, 8 years of Hillary with democrats controlling congress, and I doubt we'd have a country worth saving.

I agree.

(06-22-2014 08:21 AM)Owl 69/70/75 Wrote:  

(06-22-2014 08:14 AM)Old Dominion Wrote:  Seriously, what configuration did Clinton have and how would you rate his tenure?

Republican congress, democrat president for last 3/4 of his presidency.
And he and Reagan are the only two presidents in the last 50 years whose tenures I would rate highly.

Clinton and Reagan were both charismatic. Makes me wonder if the Presidents personality isn't at least just as important as their policys in terms of ability to get things done.
Also, didn't this trend of the President usurping congress' power begin with Cheny and his gang?

(06-22-2014 09:02 AM)Old Dominion Wrote:  Clinton and Reagan were both charismatic. Makes me wonder if the Presidents personality isn't at least just as important as their policys in terms of ability to get things done.

Obama is as charismatic as any, got very little done when his own party dominated both houses, and next to nothing since he has had a republican house. I think it takes knowledge of how to get things done. Reagan had private sector experience (even if acting is a bit unrealistic) plus years as governor working with Willie Brown, and Clinton had multiple terms as governor of Arkansas. Obama has never done anything so he doesn't know how.

Quote:Also, didn't this trend of the President usurping congress' power begin with Cheny and his gang?

No, it began with FDR and has pretty much continued unabated since.

(06-22-2014 09:15 AM)Owl 69/70/75 Wrote:  

(06-22-2014 09:02 AM)Old Dominion Wrote:  Clinton and Reagan were both charismatic. Makes me wonder if the Presidents personality isn't at least just as important as their policys in terms of ability to get things done.

Obama is as charismatic as any, got very little done when his own party dominated both houses, and next to nothing since he has had a republican house. I think it takes knowledge of how to get things done. Reagan had private sector experience (even if acting is a bit unrealistic) plus years as governor working with Willie Brown, and Clinton had multiple terms as governor of Arkansas. Obama has never done anything so he doesn't know how.

Quote:Also, didn't this trend of the President usurping congress' power begin with Cheny and his gang?

No, it began with FDR and has pretty much continued unabated since.

good point about the lack of experience.

(06-22-2014 10:08 AM)Old Dominion Wrote:  

(06-22-2014 09:15 AM)Owl 69/70/75 Wrote:  

(06-22-2014 09:02 AM)Old Dominion Wrote:  Clinton and Reagan were both charismatic. Makes me wonder if the Presidents personality isn't at least just as important as their policys in terms of ability to get things done.

Obama is as charismatic as any, got very little done when his own party dominated both houses, and next to nothing since he has had a republican house. I think it takes knowledge of how to get things done. Reagan had private sector experience (even if acting is a bit unrealistic) plus years as governor working with Willie Brown, and Clinton had multiple terms as governor of Arkansas. Obama has never done anything so he doesn't know how.

Quote:Also, didn't this trend of the President usurping congress' power begin with Cheny and his gang?

No, it began with FDR and has pretty much continued unabated since.

good point about the lack of experience.

The "beer summit" should have been a red flag for everyone as to what Obama is experienced at.

(06-22-2014 10:11 AM)Fo Shizzle Wrote:  

(06-22-2014 10:08 AM)Old Dominion Wrote:  

(06-22-2014 09:15 AM)Owl 69/70/75 Wrote:  

(06-22-2014 09:02 AM)Old Dominion Wrote:  Clinton and Reagan were both charismatic. Makes me wonder if the Presidents personality isn't at least just as important as their policys in terms of ability to get things done.

Obama is as charismatic as any, got very little done when his own party dominated both houses, and next to nothing since he has had a republican house. I think it takes knowledge of how to get things done. Reagan had private sector experience (even if acting is a bit unrealistic) plus years as governor working with Willie Brown, and Clinton had multiple terms as governor of Arkansas. Obama has never done anything so he doesn't know how.

Quote:Also, didn't this trend of the President usurping congress' power begin with Cheny and his gang?

No, it began with FDR and has pretty much continued unabated since.

good point about the lack of experience.

The "beer summit" should have been a red flag for everyone as to what Obama is experienced at.

Do you see this as a result of some fundamental flaw in the system of checks and balances?

(06-22-2014 10:44 AM)Old Dominion Wrote:  Do you see this as a result of some fundamental flaw in the system of checks and balances?

I hate to say it, but I really think the problem is the primaries. When I was younger, a few states (California, memorably) held primaries, but the party professionals controlled most of the convention delegates. And their first priority was to pick somebody who could win in November. So they would almost always favor the most centrist candidate, because he had the potential to pick up the most independent and crossover votes.

Now you have to run toward the extremes to win the primaries, then tack back to the middle for the general. And quite candidly, that's a whole lot easier if the fawning, slobbering media is giving you a pass on your past.

I'm not sure what to do. I don't think you can get rid of the primaries. Setting like 4 primary dates, one on each of Feb, Mar, Apr, and May, might spread things around a bit. How about smallest 25% of states in Feb (including always NH), next 25% in Mar, next 25% in Apr, and largest 25% in May. This would have primaries in all regions every month and would mean that nothing was decided until all the big staets vote in May. Maybe let the primaries decide only a fraction of the delegates. Maybe 1/3 primaries, 1/3 state conventions, and 1/3 elected officials from the party. Maybe make the primaries non-binding beauty contests only.

I don't think the current system produces good candidates. Just look at the last few elections.

(06-22-2014 11:12 AM)Owl 69/70/75 Wrote:  

(06-22-2014 10:44 AM)Old Dominion Wrote:  Do you see this as a result of some fundamental flaw in the system of checks and balances?

I hate to say it, but I really think the problem is the primaries. When I was younger, a few states (California, memorably) held primaries, but the party professionals controlled most of the convention delegates. And their first priority was to pick somebody who could win in November. So they would almost always favor the most centrist candidate, because he had the potential to pick up the most independent and crossover votes.

Now you have to run toward the extremes to win the primaries, then tack back to the middle for the general. And quite candidly, that's a whole lot easier if the fawning, slobbering media is giving you a pass on your past.

I'm not sure what to do. I don't think you can get rid of the primaries. Setting like 4 primary dates, one on each of Feb, Mar, Apr, and May, might spread things around a bit. How about smallest 25% of states in Feb (including always NH), next 25% in Mar, next 25% in Apr, and largest 25% in May. This would have primaries in all regions every month and would mean that nothing was decided until all the big staets vote in May. Maybe let the primaries decide only a fraction of the delegates. Maybe 1/3 primaries, 1/3 state conventions, and 1/3 elected officials from the party. Maybe make the primaries non-binding beauty contests only.

I don't think the current system produces good candidates. Just look at the last few elections.

Gerrymandered districts are killers, imo. Absolutely no reason to moderate.

(06-22-2014 11:43 AM)Old Dominion Wrote:  Gerrymandered districts are killers, imo. Absolutely no reason to moderate.

But here's the problem. With the Voting Rights Act, they're almost mandatory. You have to have so many guaranteed minority districts. And not only do those have to be gerrymandered, but once they are done you are forced to gerrymander around them.