Obama wins a 2nd term! Hooray!

[Shawn Sunshine]

Now lets hope he can be able to spend the next 4 years making it better for all lgbt people, of course we all know that the senate and the house have yet to be decided though, but I pray it will be a good 4 years.

[justmeinoz]

It was on all the TV channels here pretty much throughout the day. Bizarre system, but for my brothers and sisters over there a good result I would say.

[Cindy]

I wonder if someone with the insight could explain the implications of what bit means in general terms, for both local economic situations, international affairs and for the GLBGT community. I have to admit I'm not too bothered about the GLBGT community 'cos I can't see it on an agenda for anyone.

From an Aussie point of view (Ah mine )

Will the USA take control of its economic survival or keep printing money?

What will be the stance over Pakistan, Afghanistan.

What is the opinion about Iran?

Will diplomacy take over from warfare?


In the USA:

Will a proper and 'fair' taxation system be placed?

Will a fair and proper health system be put into place?

Will poverty in the USA be addressed in practical and sustainable means?

Technology:

Will the USA support technological development by fostering its University system?

Associated to technology. Will the USA strengthen or weaken ecological guidelines to its energy companies?

Will the USA change its stance on carbon production and  Earth warming?


I'm not wanting to provoke argument. Just discussion.

I will self moderate this thread.

That means I will keep it civil and on track, every opinion is welcome but comments outside of ToS are not.

I look forward to an intelligent discussion.

Cindy

[japple]

Now lets hope he can be able to spend the next 4 years making it better for all lgbt people, of course we all know that the senate and the house have yet to be decided though, but I pray it will be a good 4 years.

Yay! He's done so much already. I think he'll pass ENDA and hopefully Federal Marriage Equality in a few years.

[Shana A]

Congratulations, President Obama!

[Vicky]

In the USA:
Will a proper and 'fair' taxation system be placed?

As a retired civil service tax administrator who got to look at this from several directions the basic system is fair enough as a taxation system.  Where it goes haywire is when it gets into the various treasuries that elected officials can get their hands into.  There is no guarantee that personal income taxes will go to items that affect the ability of the payor to continue to earn the wages or participate in commerce.  Sales Taxes on the purchase of goods and services are also not efficiently allocated toward the internal mechanics of providing the goods and services.  Highway use taxes do not go toward maintenace of the infra structure in any great amount.  Here where I live, the property taxes are not guaranteed to enhance my ability to use or protect my property (ie-police and fire protection) but a particular group of idealistic (barf) numbskulls brags that they are low and protected.

The basic systems look good on the surface, but the accountability and demonstration of the use of the money is the isssue.  It is the uncertainty of what you are buying with your tax money that is the largest non-fairness issue, and I for one am very pessimistic on seeing it change in the next 20 years which are my general life expectancy at this point.  It will not happen in the next four years short of a bona fide miracle, and would not have happened had the other party won either.

[Joelene9]

  Big Bird is safe for another 4 years!  I like PBS programs. 

  Joelene

                                           

[Shantel]

  Big Bird is safe for another 4 years!  I like PBS programs. 

  Joelene

                                           

Me too, I'm watching "Upstairs, Downstairs", I like the British period pieces!

I'll make a prediction as an independent fiscal conservative, that a future Republican party nominee will never be elected again and within four years we will be worse off than Greece, it will be twice as scary because every s.o.b. in America is armed to the teeth. When hyperinflation sets in and the good and plenties dry up this spoiled generation will act badly.

[aleon515]

Yeah Obama (and new house and senate winners in NM!!)

I'll take a stab at Cindy's questions:
(and btw, I'll leave this discussion if it is too much arguing for me.)
I think basically this means that the more right wing side of the Republican will have suffered a defeat. Not sure if this means they will basically decide they will need to become *more right wing* or if they will decide that the minority has become majority. My own state (New Mexico) is mostly non-white.

>Will the USA take control of its economic survival or keep printing money?

The deficit has already been reduced (contrary to opinions). I don't know that with a recession there will be much of a taste for reducing it more, but I think that there will be plans for reduction (ala Clinton), just can't do it now. Obamacare will reduce the deficits some.

>What will be the stance over Pakistan, Afghanistan.

I think drone strikes will continue. Beyond that... I think the US will leave Afghanistan on schedule which is 2014.)

>What is the opinion about Iran?

We will not go to war in Iran is my guess.

>Will diplomacy take over from warfare?

Obama has shown some skills (and some deficits) in this area.


In the USA:

>Will a proper and 'fair' taxation system be placed?

Not now. Maybe there will more taxes on people making over $100,000 a year.

>Will a fair and proper health system be put into place?

So-called Obamacare will not be repealed. I don't think this is exactly a proper system. But the odds of us having fully universal care is unlikely in the foreseeable future. Obamacare will go into effect fully and cover more uninsured people, include preexisting conditions, not kick people off insurance for being sick, etc. (BTW, I believe hormones will be included in Obamacare as they are covered in US medicare --over 65).  One effect of the supreme court decision that allowed Obamacare is that there will LESS coverage for people who are lower income in some states (complex to explain this).

> Will poverty in the USA be addressed in practical and sustainable means?
No. I doubt it. There may be measures that help the poor.

Technology:

>Will the USA support technological development by fostering its University system?
There will be more Pell grants (this is student aid), laws to protect against private university hurting students, grants for energy development and science to universities.
Science will be back "in".

>Associated to technology. Will the USA strengthen or weaken ecological guidelines to its energy companies?
Strengthen. Obama already did a few things-- block the a coal shale pipeline and raise fuel standards. There will be efforts to increase conservation. Also there will be some increase of drilling but not as much as there would have been for the Republicans. There will be more funding for solar, wind, and so on. I don't think we will get a smart grid. I think it would be a great idea and good stimulus though.


>Will the USA change its stance on carbon production and  Earth warming?

See above. I don't know that there will be much done except in terms of fuel standards and increase in solar, wind, etc. There will be talk re: "clean coal" (a myth).
They will attend any world conference on the environment but not lead. You'd think Sandy would be a kick in the .... on this.

We will not get 4 new ultra right Supreme Court members. This will have a profound effect. I don't know if we will get less gridlock. The problem for some of these issues is the president has no kind of majority and the amt. of gridlock is somewhat plausible because one house is still very conservative. You can't pass laws with one house. Certain things will happen but not sure what these will be. I think the election will be somewhat of a wake up re: the demographics of the US which shows that no one can run as a president of white people again.

I agree we have a very weird system Strange as it may seem, I think it was meant to be rather difficult to govern like this. The "founding fathers" were wise in some respects but highly suspicious of central government.

Should keep these for 4 years and see if I was right.

>Cindy

--Jay J
in four years I will be taking T and have top surgery?

[Cindy]

Thank You Jay J that was just what I wanted. I'm not in the least wanting argument just facts.

I had to laugh as there are a number of Democrat voters posting that they are going to emigrate to Australia as we have a "male Prime Minister who upholds 'Christian' values". However,  she is an aethiest who lives unmarried with her partner. Many politicians and judges in Australia are openly Gay. We have universal compulsory health care, abortion is on demand and covered by health care, there is no capital punishment and guns are banned from the general public. And the majority of the population wouldn't know the inside of a church if it fell on them.

Mmm could be a problem

Cindy

[justmeinoz]

And there is the Compulsory Voting and compulsory seat belt, and m/cycle and bike helmet usage as well. 

Karen.

[aleon515]

I am guessing these are Republican voters. I think Democrats are happy right now.
I saw some tea partiers thinking they wanted to move to Canada. Really Canada!?

BTW, Cindy I was pretty sure you wanted someone to try and answer these (am I right? Who knows?) But political discussions can be-- you know- really more  heated than I want to participate in. I like the head centered intellectual kind of stuff as that is just the kind of nerdy guy I am.

For a simple (I think 4th grade) explanation about how a bill becomes a law in the US see here:
http://kids.clerk.house.gov/grade-school/lesson.html?intID=17
Sorry about 4th grade but I have it on speed dial.

The US system allows for this crazy situation: If both houses don't approve, it will never become a law and the president can only do so much. Some presidents are skilled at arm wrestling and so on. (Lyndon Johnson comes to mind.) The reason Obama was able to do so much in two years (Obamacare and so on) was that he had a majority in both houses. When the 2010 elections came around, the Democrats lost the House of Representatives.

Diplomacy on the world, certain types of presidential declarations and so on are limited possibilities that allow a president to act in certain situations.

It explains the Kyoto protocols. The US committee that attended and approved it while there. However when they got back to the US, one or both Houses (can't recall) didn't approve it, so it more or less died there.

OTOH, Obama was able to make a presidential order to reduce fuel standards in cars by 2014 to certain limits. I believe it was agreed to by car dealers. So this could be very useful with climate issues.

It's an odd system. Designed at some level not always to work too well.
In times like this of high animosity, it might now work at all.



--Jay J

[Hannahbellelecker]

Personally, I didn't vote for Barrack Obama, I voted Green Party / Jill Stein. But yes, it was a big sigh of relief that Mitt Romney did not get elected. That would have been devastating for the country as a whole and for LGBTQ civil rights.

My hopes for this election are that people really do let the president know that we really, really need a universal healthcare system in the US, like much of the outside world has. I really hope he repeals some horrible laws that were passed here such as the NDAA and Patriot Act.

[Sara Murphy]

As for taxes, hopefully the wealthy will pay their fair share. It only makes sense to tax people more when they CAN AFFORD IT. You wouldn't tell someone with a mediocre job to buy a Lambergini, so why would you tax said person a hefty portion of his/her income?

I'm sorry, but why should a person who has worked their butt off to be successful and earn every dollar have to pay more because they "CAN AFFORD IT"? 
Is this not class warfare?  Steal from the rich and give to the lazy.

[Snowpaw]

I'm sorry, but why should a person who has worked their butt off to be successful and earn every dollar have to pay more because they "CAN AFFORD IT"? 
Is this not class warfare?  Steal from the rich and give to the lazy.

Not all rich earned it and are just living off parents wealth.
Not all poor are just lazy. This is a hateful post at best, at worst just completely wrong. Try to say it with less vitriol and there might be some credibility.

[Snowpaw]

Let's try to keep it tame, people.

Sounds like a good plan.

[Jamie D]

I am surprised that the Patriot Act wasn't repealed yet. Suspected terrorist on flimsy evidence = Guantanamo without any due process. Sixth and Eighth amendment right violations, anyone? (Must be allowed due process and no cruel/unusual punishments, respectively, for you Cindy, in case you didn't know.  )

Honestly, though, I wouldn't mind moving to Canada. I could have the benefits of a universal healthcare system, make some cash, and then move my behind back to Ecuador. 

Then again, Cindy, Australia sounds awesome.  I could live without capital punishment (no pun intended), but I honestly prefer it. I don't think murderers should get free housing, heat, food, etc. in prison. Then again, you're free to disagree.

As for Iran, there is no way Congress will declare another war when the others caused so much chaos for nothing.

As for taxes, hopefully the wealthy will pay their fair share. It only makes sense to tax people more when they CAN AFFORD IT. You wouldn't tell someone with a mediocre job to buy a Lambergini, so why would you tax said person a hefty portion of his/her income?

As for education, I have little faith in the US education system. The system works to foster grades rather than knowledge.

"As for education, I have little faith in the US education system."

I completely understand.

"Suspected terrorist on flimsy evidence = Guantanamo without any due process. Sixth and Eighth amendment right violations, anyone? (Must be allowed due process and no cruel/unusual punishments, respectively, for you Cindy, in case you didn't know."

The detainees held at Guantanamo Bay are considered "unlawful combatants."  They are not afforded the full panoply rights in the civil or criminal system of the detaining country.  Instead, they are covered under the 'Laws of War," and international agreements, such as the Geneva Conventions, and other Protocols.  Many of them were acting in the role of mercenaries, which further diminishes their rights within the Laws of War.

Under those conventions, the detainees can be held indefinitely, so long as the conflict in which they were engaged continues.

Hope that helps clears up some of the confusion.

[tekla]

Our system of justice has worked up to this point, why can't it work in that context too.  G-mo is a bad, bad idea, one that power hungry people latched on to with more gusto than was necessary.  We've held and tried terrorists before.  Found them guilty and executed them and all.  There is no reason (outside of creating a system outside the entire rule of law in the US) to any of that to exist.

[Brooke777]

I do not think the average U.S. citizen understands the Patriot Act. As someone who has worked directly with it for a number of years, I can honestly say it has made things more difficult. The process that has to be gone through to invoke it is daunting. It takes far less effort just to take someone down for federal crimes and charge them with terrorism at a later date. I honestly believe the Patriot Act protects those who would otherwise be wrongfully charged as a terrorist or other form of combatant.

[Jamie D]

I'm aware of the Guantanamo rules; I just disagree with them, is all. I just feel that since a lot of the detainees are US citizens, they deserve the rights any other citizen has under the 14th ammendment of equal protection under the law for all US citizens.

I just want to correct another misconception.  Of the 558 known detainees who were held, at one time or another, in the Guantanamo facility, only one claimed American citizenship - Yaser Esam Hamdi.  Hamdi was a Saudi who was born in the US while his father was a student here.  Therefore, he could claim dual citizenship.  His case went all the way to the Supreme Court, who "ruled that detainees who are U.S. citizens must have the ability to challenge their enemy [unlawful] combatant status before an impartial judge."

Hamdi was released to Saudi Arabia on the condition he give up his US citizenship rights.