PDA

View Full Version : Why Democrats are Ineffective.


The Source
03-08-2007, 06:45 PM
Why Democrats are Unaffective.
I thought this was an interesting subject. About two months ago, I descided to stop watching the news. At that period of time, the Democrats were fighting with the President over Iraq. I got the impresssion that they were going to be inaffective. Today, I finally turned into the news, and I started to laugh my but off. The Democrats are very unaffective. The President is just not going to move on the Iraq subject. I don't know what that means for the rest of us, but I can honestly tell you they haven't made the president flinch.

I think something needs to be done, so the President gets the message. The only problem is that he is just not listening, or he doesn't really give a damn. I don't know what is worse: A President that does not listen to his people, or a majority oposition that is unaffective. Grrr...

Lately, the Democrats are trying to force a pull-out. I think the President is raking money in and laughing at us all.

Negative Sun
03-08-2007, 07:00 PM
It doesn't do anything because that is the job of an opposition in any democratic government: Complain about the current running government/main party/president

And it's the government's job to ignore them, because no one likes to be proven wrong now do they? Especially not in politics.

SilentScope001
03-08-2007, 07:28 PM
I think something needs to be done, so the President gets the message.

He does read the messages. He just believes it to be wrong.

Remember, this is the division of power here. You have the potential to gain more power for the Legastivie branch right here, but if you excerise it, and then you LOSE that power, then the Republicans can end up doing some unpopular stuff I'm sure you may not like. There was a time in the 1990s when the Republican majority had to contend with the Democratic President, and I'm sure the Republicans felt frustated at Clinton. The Republicans shut down the entire USA by refusing to pass the budget, but that didn't work, as people turned against the Republicans. They even tried impeachment, but that was a big failure, and it actually cost them some seats. Think of this as the Republican's revenge for what they felt under Clinton.

Remember, 2 years ago, the people voted in President Bush, with 51%. 1 year later, a new election will be held. Don't overreact and do something drastic (like cut off troop funding) that will cause voters to hate you and create a backlash. The Republicans did that, and lost big time.

Arátoeldar
03-08-2007, 07:45 PM
Why Democrats are Unaffective.
I thought this was an interesting subject. About two months ago, I descided to stop watching the news. At that period of time, the Democrats were fighting with the President over Iraq. I got the impresssion that they were going to be inaffective. Today, I finally turned into the news, and I started to laugh my but off. The Democrats are very unaffective. The President is just not going to move on the Iraq subject. I don't know what that means for the rest of us, but I can honestly tell you they haven't made the president flinch.

I think something needs to be done, so the President gets the message. The only problem is that he is just not listening, or he doesn't really give a damn. I don't know what is worse: A President that does not listen to his people, or a majority opposition that is unaffective. Grrr...

Lately, the Democrats are trying to force a pull-out. I think the President is raking money in and laughing at us all.

How can the President or Vice President be raking in the money when they are a salaried position and any assets that they have are in a blind trust. I suggest you take a Civics101 and Econ101 classes.

Nancy Allen``
03-09-2007, 11:31 PM
With Iraq, I think the Democrats realise that now that they have more power to bring the troops home they realise the deaths that would occur when there's nothing to stop the Iraqis from killing each other would be on their heads.

As for the ineffectiveness of the Democrats, I think it has more to do with the people leading them. After Clinton and all the problems he faced people took a preference to Bush, and in the pre Iraq war on terror the Democrats had no hope of winning. In the 2004 elections Bush didn't win the election, Kerry lost it. This was shown when a mere two years later, with opposition to Iraq as strong as during the Presidential reelection, the Democrats won. I think because of Bush we will be seeing Democratic president in 2008.

SilentScope001
03-09-2007, 11:45 PM
Oh, it turns out the Democrats has just read MacCorp's post and took his advice. They're doing SOMETHING.

http://www.sacbee.com/111/story/135113.html

Though it looks like they will be ineffective anyway. Horray for the Seperation of the Three Branches of Government (aka, the Presidental Veto, and the Democrats only having a majority, not the 2/3rd need to override a veto)! Checks and balances really become a major pain when it turns out you're on the receiving end of it, no? :)