| FORUM | ARCHIVE |                    | TOTAL QUIZ RESULT |


  New Posts New Posts RSS Feed - US Politics
  FAQ FAQ  Forum Search   Events   Register Register  Login Login


Welcome stranger, click here to read about some of the great benefits of registering for a free account with us and joining us in our global online community.


US Politics

 Post Reply Post Reply
Author
toyomotor View Drop Down
Moderator
Moderator
Avatar

Joined: 15 Feb 2014
Location: Tasmania, AUST.
Status: Offline
Points: 4880
Post Options Post Options   Thanks (0) Thanks(0)   Quote toyomotor Quote  Post ReplyReply Direct Link To This Post Topic: US Politics
    Posted: 26 Jul 2014 at 09:03
I'm asking to be educated on a few points about the US Political System, especially the electoral process.
 
I specifically do not want comment about past or current individuals.
 
My questions are, firstly about the Presidents (POTUS):
  • Is the President the leader of a political party?
  • Or is he merely their candidate bcome Presidential Election Time?
  • Does the President spend his time in the House of Reps while it is sitting-as happens under the Westminster System?
  • Does the President appoint all of the political Heads of Departments, The Secretaries, Directors etc?

I understand that it is possible for members of the party opposing the Presidents party to make up the majority in the House of Reps (is that Congress?), if that is so;

  • Who sets the political agenda for the Presidents 4yr term of office?
  • If it's the President, how does he get a hostile House to follow his agenda?
  • Does the House have to follow his agenda?
  • Do the various Sectretaries/Directors etc answer directly to the President?
  • Are they all from his political party, or is it a mixture?

As for the Vice President, we don't usually hear much about him overseas, but;

  • Is he from the Presidents Political Party?
  • Apart for filling in when the Presidents is absent or incapacitated, what does he actually do?
  • Why do the VPs seldom make the top job?

Thanks for any info.

 

 

 

It's not that I was born in Ireland,
It's the Ireland that was born in me.
Back to Top
Sponsored Links


Back to Top
toyomotor View Drop Down
Moderator
Moderator
Avatar

Joined: 15 Feb 2014
Location: Tasmania, AUST.
Status: Offline
Points: 4880
Post Options Post Options   Thanks (0) Thanks(0)   Quote toyomotor Quote  Post ReplyReply Direct Link To This Post Posted: 31 Jul 2014 at 14:09
Well now, it appears that our American members either have no idea about how their government works, or simply can't explain it.
 
Pity that!
 
 
It's not that I was born in Ireland,
It's the Ireland that was born in me.
Back to Top
Arlington View Drop Down
Earl
Earl


Joined: 13 Feb 2014
Status: Offline
Points: 259
Post Options Post Options   Thanks (0) Thanks(0)   Quote Arlington Quote  Post ReplyReply Direct Link To This Post Posted: 31 Jul 2014 at 22:41
Originally posted by toyomotor toyomotor wrote:



I'm asking to be educated on a few points about the US Political System, especially the electoral process.
 
I specifically do not want comment about past or current individuals.
 
My questions are, firstly about the Presidents (POTUS):
  • Is the President the leader of a political party?



  • ** yes and no. prior to election he is normally a recognized leader, among many, of the party. after. yes he is their leader.




    Or is he merely their candidate bcome Presidential Election Time?







  • **no he is one of potential many during the campaign season and nomination process. although there have been exceptions when a candidate runs for his party's nomination uncontested.






    Does the President spend his time in the House of Reps while it is sitting-as happens under the Westminster System?




  • ** no. he has no authority in the house or senate ref government separation clauses of the constitution. He has executive authority reference the same and his position and seat of authority is the White House.


    Does the President appoint all of the political Heads of Departments, The Secretaries, Directors etc?




** yes. and no. The major positions yes. Their nomination must be approved by the Senate. This include assistants and associates and deputy's. and the lesser positions within a department that are not nominated by the dept heads themselves. In law enforcement and the military some positions and appoints are recommend to the President by those institution which he will either concur with or not. if he does concur then again they must be approved by the Senate. he does not however appoint General Service or General Manage positions. these lie within the purview of the Secretary or Department heads themselves.



I understand that it is possible for members of the party opposing the Presidents party to make up the majority in the House of Reps (is that Congress?), if that is so;

  • Who sets the political agenda for the Presidents 4yr term of office?

    **Congress is composed of the House and the Senate, neither alone.
    The agenda is set by his party and their adherents and supporters. and their financial support based on their ideologies







  • If it's the President, how does he get a hostile House to follow his agenda?




  • ** he generally doesn't. but if he does it's based on his ability to demonstrate leadership and compromise of and for their agendas.






  • Does the House have to follow his agenda?







  • ** no.





  • Do the various Sectretaries/Directors etc answer directly to the President?




  • ** yes.


  • Are they all from his political party, or is it a mixture?





** most are but not always. there are exceptions generally found when the president can find a more moderate member of the opposition, who in turn is willing to serve.





As for the Vice President, we don't usually hear much about him overseas, but;

  • Is he from the Presidents Political Party?




  • ** historically? yes.

  • Apart for filling in when the Presidents is absent or incapacitated, what does he actually do?






  • ** First and foremost he is the president of the senate. with procedural and tie breaking on votes; responsibilities.

    he also has what's known as recurring duties. see:http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Vice_President_of_the_United_States#Regular_duties


  • Why do the VPs seldom make the top job?



  • ** some do and most don't. primarily because of their perceived acceptance by the party, at large, as either a potential successful follow on candidate; and promoter and defender of party agendas or not.


Thanks for any info.

 

 

 

Back to Top
Windemere View Drop Down
Earl
Earl
Avatar

Joined: 09 Oct 2007
Location: U.S.A.
Status: Offline
Points: 295
Post Options Post Options   Thanks (0) Thanks(0)   Quote Windemere Quote  Post ReplyReply Direct Link To This Post Posted: 04 Aug 2014 at 01:29
When the Founding Fathers set up the American system of government in the late 1700s, one of their foremost goals was to ensure that the government would always be democratic, and could never evolve into a dictatorship or tyranny. The government was divided into 3 parts (executive, legislative, and judicial), each with it's own discrete set of powers, seperate from the others (although in practice, they frequently overlap). The Presidents heads the executive branch, Congress is the legislative branch, and the Supreme Court is the judicial branch. The President's main mission is to enforce the law. Congress is supposed to make the laws. And the Supreme Court interprets and defines the law.

The system has worked quite well over the past 238 or so years, as far as ensuring the continuance of democracy, and avoiding tyranny. I think it's greatest drawback is the propensity for gridlock, which occurs when the President and Congress have differing, and sometimes contradictory, agendas. (And which is going on right now at present, with the President  being a Democrat, the Democrats also the majority in the Senate (Upper House of Congress), but the Republicans being the majority in the House of Representatives (Lower House of Congress)). Each side tries to prevent the other from putting its agenda into effect, and the result is gridlock, where there is endless bickering, and nothing gets done.

This state of affairs continues until the public becomes disgusted with the political situation, and voters elect either a new President, or new Congressmen, who cooperate with each other. But inevitably, as time goes on, gridlock will re-occur.

Still, I think that many Americans have a primitive, innate distrust of government, and would be leery of having a system where the head of the government, and the legislature, were always both from the same political party. Such a system would likely be more efficient, but there would be a fear that it could lead to too much concentration of power, and possibly, tyranny.
Dis Aliter Visum
"Beware of martyrs and those who would die for their beliefs; for they frequently make many others die with them, often before them, sometimes instead of them."
Back to Top
toyomotor View Drop Down
Moderator
Moderator
Avatar

Joined: 15 Feb 2014
Location: Tasmania, AUST.
Status: Offline
Points: 4880
Post Options Post Options   Thanks (0) Thanks(0)   Quote toyomotor Quote  Post ReplyReply Direct Link To This Post Posted: 04 Aug 2014 at 03:32
Windemere:
Thanks for your comments.
 
I can see how easily the gridlock could occur under the US system. Under the Westminster System, as used in Australia, the gridlock only occurs when the government has a minority in the Senate, and the Senate refuses to pass a bill.
 
To us, having a national leader who is not the actual leader of the governing party, seems strange, but if it works for the US, so be it.
 
As for the centralisation of power, if the electorate chooses to elect a majority (of the same party) in both houses, that is the will of the people and the government will have an easier road in instituting its policies.
 
But electors are very fickle and if the government performs badly, it gets the boot.
 
In Australia voting is compulsory at State and Federal level, but there are still a few Donkey Votes.
 
 
It's not that I was born in Ireland,
It's the Ireland that was born in me.
Back to Top
Captain Vancouver View Drop Down
Council Member
Council Member
Avatar

Joined: 29 Sep 2010
Location: Vancouver Isle
Status: Offline
Points: 2160
Post Options Post Options   Thanks (0) Thanks(0)   Quote Captain Vancouver Quote  Post ReplyReply Direct Link To This Post Posted: 04 Aug 2014 at 14:33
Originally posted by toyomotor toyomotor wrote:

 
 
In Australia voting is compulsory at State and Federal level, but there are still a few Donkey Votes.
 
 

How many donkeys have been elected to date?
Back to Top
toyomotor View Drop Down
Moderator
Moderator
Avatar

Joined: 15 Feb 2014
Location: Tasmania, AUST.
Status: Offline
Points: 4880
Post Options Post Options   Thanks (0) Thanks(0)   Quote toyomotor Quote  Post ReplyReply Direct Link To This Post Posted: 05 Aug 2014 at 04:09
Originally posted by Captain Vancouver Captain Vancouver wrote:

Originally posted by toyomotor toyomotor wrote:

 
 
In Australia voting is compulsory at State and Federal level, but there are still a few Donkey Votes.
 
 

How many donkeys have been elected to date?
 
Tongue Unfortunately, a few too many. We just got rid of a truck load at the last elections.
It's not that I was born in Ireland,
It's the Ireland that was born in me.
Back to Top
OzzieThinker View Drop Down
Immortal Guard
Immortal Guard
Avatar

Joined: 07 Jan 2015
Location: Australia
Status: Offline
Points: 4
Post Options Post Options   Thanks (0) Thanks(0)   Quote OzzieThinker Quote  Post ReplyReply Direct Link To This Post Posted: 08 Jan 2015 at 05:28
There is the politics you see and the politics you don't.

Thus, what's voted for rarely matches what's delivered. Indeed, the skeptic might argue voters do not count for anything.

For my research of political ideology in Great Britain, Australia and the United States, I see next to no difference between the policy considerations of left and right. Approaches may be radically different, though.

For instance, Obama's drive to power posited him as the "people's Messiah" against the old nepotistic order (Clinton is a Bush cousin). Propaganda had rightly characterised Bush Junior as the "Angel of Death".

That was the "pitch". The reality is that Obama's policies have been far more austere than Bush's, his war mongering record is far more despicable and dereliction of social welfare, with ventures such as Obamacon (sometimes called Obamacare), suggests Democrat and Repulican are nothing more than quaint "names".

Via Maritime Law the United is rapidly being carved up by the United Nations and I could see global federalisation becoming reality by 2017. This would, ironically, almost mark the centenary of the League of Nations which was set up by the American President Woodrow Wilson (and likely "conceived" in 1917) as part of the schedule of reparations against Germany after WWI (L of N was "formally" founded 10th January 1920).

Wilson did enable the 253 storm trooping Brooklyn Bolsheviks' safe passage from US (briefly interupted by Candad) to St Petersberg to conduct the worker's revolution (sic) in 1917. By all accounts none of the revolutionaries could speak a word of Russian (Yiddish was no problem, of course).

To conclude, modern US politics seems to be 100% related to corporate interests (funding) and lobby groups (such as AIPAC). These bodies do not vote, but direct all governments.



The first part of my latest book, "Dimensions, Deceptions & Demons" http://ozziethinker.wordpress.com/2015/01/04/introduction-to-dimensions-deceptions-demons/
Back to Top
 Post Reply Post Reply
  Share Topic   

Forum Jump Forum Permissions View Drop Down

Forum Software by Web Wiz Forums® version 11.10
Copyright ©2001-2017 Web Wiz Ltd.

This page was generated in 0.078 seconds.