• 2012: Year of Elections - 1/3rd of nations will vote in local and national levels
    56 replies, posted
[QUOTE]2011 will likely be recorded as a year of historic change. Mass uprisings have upended governments across the Arab world. Economic mismanagement in Europe led to changes at the top in Italy, Greece and Spain. 365 days ago you couldn't have predicted these events. You couldn't have imagined so many leaders would lose their jobs. So what if I told you that you can predict that in 2012, a lot of leaders will say goodbye? No, I'm not gazing into a magic crystal ball. You see, 2012 is the year of elections. [B]59 countries will be tallying up votes - local, state or national. There are 193 countries in the world so that's about a third of the world's nations.[/B] 26 of these may see a change in national leadership. Together, these changes could affect 53% of the world's population, representing half of the world's GDP. And a lot of the change is concentrated in the world's most powerful countries. [B]Four out of the five U.N. Security Council members could see changes at the top. That's Russia, China, France, and, of course, the U.S. These four countries alone represent 40% of the world's GDP.[/B] Of all of them, China will not have democratic elections, of course, but it will see the biggest, wholesale change at the top. [B]70% of the country's leadership will be new.[/B] But we're not expecting any surprises - it's widely believed that Hu Jintao and Wen Jiabao will be replaced by Xi Jinping and Li Keqiang. So, get used to those names, you'll be hearing a lot of them. Russia's election will be the most predictable. [B]We already know that Prime Minister Putin is going to become President Putin once again.[/B] But even that change isn't as clear-cut as you'd imagine. For the first time in years, it seems like it's becoming acceptable in Russia to criticize the Kremlin. Putin was recently openly booed at a boxing match, and his party had a stunningly weak showing in the recent parliamentary elections. What about Washington? One year from now we could have a President Mitt Romney. Or a President Newt Gingrich. Or another Obama term. South of the border, that perennial pain in Washington's backside, [B]Hugo Chavez himself, needs to win an election - though he rigged the last one.[/B] There will be changes too in Mexico, Egypt, Taiwan and Kenya, just to name a few. Some of these elections and leadership changes involve nothing more than personnel shifts; others will be occasions for fundamental debates about the future course of the country. It could mean a shift so that we will see a different Europe, a different China, and a different America in the next few years. So for those of you who have been struck by the volatility of recent years - the roller coaster ride we've all been on from boom to bust, crisis to crisis - I would say, keep that seatbelt strapped on because you're going to see a lot of churn over the next year. It may not be bad but there will be no shortage of political twists and turns around the world - and those are just the ones we know about. One thing I can promise, we'll be tracking them all right here on CNN.com/GPS and on my show every Sunday at 10a.m. and 1p.m. EST. [/QUOTE] Source: [url]http://globalpublicsquare.blogs.cnn.com/2011/12/30/zakaria-2012-the-year-of-elections/?hpt=hp_bn2[/url] Kind of interesting to think about - it'll be a whole different world come 2013
This year I'm actually paying a lot of attention to the candidates. I'm eligible to vote now and I gotta say, it's pretty interesting to hear some of the things they have to say.
[QUOTE=jbthekid;34027528]This year I'm actually paying a lot of attention to the candidates. I'm eligible to vote now and I gotta say, it's pretty interesting to hear some of the things they have to say.[/QUOTE] Same here. No matter who wins the Republican Primaries the debates that will pit the winner against Obama will be crucial.
Im just voting the lesser evil (aka Obama) if huntsman doesn't get on the ballot. because huntsman is probably the only republican with his head not up his ass with foreign policy, spending, limiting corporation, healthcare, and civil unions.
people will still vote for mickey mouse
It's going to be another Obama term.
[QUOTE=codemaster85;34028049]Im just voting the lesser evil (aka Obama) if huntsman doesn't get on the ballot. because huntsman is probably the only republican with his head not up his ass with foreign policy, spending, limiting corporation, healthcare, and civil unions.[/QUOTE] Well he was the ambassador to China, he's got good experience with diplomacy.
[QUOTE=danelo;34028181]It's going to be another Obama term.[/QUOTE] God willing.
Obama isn't doing anything he promised though, he is being pushed around as if he has no backbone. This "change" he described has not come yet?
[QUOTE=billyjohn86;34028476]Obama isn't doing anything he promised though, he is being pushed around as if he has no backbone. This "change" he described has not come yet?[/QUOTE] I'd say he has done quite a few things he promised, just not all of them: [url]http://www.politifact.com/truth-o-meter/promises/obameter/[/url]
[QUOTE=Megafanx13;34028483]I'd say he has done quite a few things he promised, just not all of them: [url]http://www.politifact.com/truth-o-meter/promises/obameter/[/url][/QUOTE] Why has he not closed Gitmo yet.
[QUOTE=billyjohn86;34028536]Why has he not closed Gitmo yet.[/QUOTE] If you Must know, our government is not a dictatorship, so he can't go around changing things willy nilly.
Hopefully, a Communist will be elected in Russia and will do a way with the stupid system of Democracy.
[QUOTE=codemaster85;34028601]If you Must know, our government is not a dictatorship, so he can't go around changing things willy nilly.[/QUOTE] Which is rather unfortunate.
[QUOTE=billyjohn86;34028476]Obama isn't doing anything he promised though, he is being pushed around as if he has no backbone. This "change" he described has not come yet?[/QUOTE] It's people like you who piss me off. For one, he has done quite a bit. But you cannot expect to rebuild a completely broken nation in one term. I say we give him another. He hasn't dragged us all the way out of the hole yet, but he hasn't brought us farther down into it like McCain would have. That and the rest of the candidates are so absolutely retarded that it's become less "politics" and more "retarded reality TV show". They are all a joke, and I don't understand how they've gotten even this far. (Probably because the rest of the Republican Party is either painfully stupid or to absolutely evil to be elected.) Most of this "he hasn't done what he promised!" shit is just misinformation and propaganda. He's left us in a better state then we would be if any of the other candidates got elected, and it's likely he'll do just as decent next term, which is the best we can hope for. Besides, it's not the president that needs focusing on. We need better people in Congress. Preferably younger people.
[QUOTE=codemaster85;34028601]If you Must know, our government is not a dictatorship, so he can't go around changing things willy nilly.[/QUOTE] The President is the Commander in Chief of the United States military. Gitmo is a US military base. He has full power to shut it down by simply ordering it, no questions asked. [editline]3rd January 2012[/editline] [QUOTE=BananaFoam;34028660]It's people like you who piss me off. For one, he has done quite a bit. But you cannot expect to rebuild a completely broken nation in one term. I say we give him another. He hasn't dragged us all the way out of the hole yet, but he hasn't brought us farther down into it like McCain would have. That and the rest of the candidates are so absolutely retarded that it's become less "politics" and more "retarded reality TV show". They are all a joke, and I don't understand how they've gotten even this far. (Probably because the rest of the Republican Party is either painfully stupid or to absolutely evil to be elected.) Most of this "he hasn't done what he promised!" shit is just misinformation and propaganda. He's left us in a better state then we would be if any of the other candidates got elected, and it's likely he'll do just as decent next term, which is the best we can hope for. Besides, it's not the president that needs focusing on. We need better people in Congress. Preferably younger people.[/QUOTE] Congressional term limits ftw
[QUOTE=Emperor Scorpious II;34028873]The President is the Commander in Chief of the United States military. Gitmo is a US military base. He has full power to shut it down by simply ordering it, no questions asked. [/QUOTE] There is a great deal of uncertainty about where the prisoners would go from what I hear.
[QUOTE=Emperor Scorpious II;34028873]The President is the Commander in Chief of the United States military. Gitmo is a US military base. He has full power to shut it down by simply ordering it, no questions asked. [editline]3rd January 2012[/editline] Congressional term limits ftw[/QUOTE] Actually no, he would have to still get congressional approval. Sure the president is head of the armed forces, but he can't control it directly for more than 24 hours per term. The reason they limited what the president can do as commander in chief was because they don't want one man to be able to start war without the people's opinion.
[QUOTE=codemaster85;34028993]Actually no, he would have to still get congressional approval. Sure the president is head of the armed forces, but he can't control it directly for more than 24 hours per term. The reason they limited what the president can do as commander in chief was because they don't want one man to be able to start war without the people's opinion.[/QUOTE] Someone forgot to tell Bush then :v:
I would rather have an inefficient Democracy than a super efficient Dictatorship. Democracy is, by design, a slow and painful process. Congress is like an intestinal system. The bill is chinese food or a block of cheese, or something. Getting it passed is like a painful and slow bowel movement. Or something. [editline]3rd January 2012[/editline] And it all turns to shit anyway.
[QUOTE=Emperor Scorpious II;34029050]Someone forgot to tell Bush then :v:[/QUOTE] Bush got permission from congress the week right after 9/11 to start the war on terror (iraq/afghanistan war). The president can declare war, but congress is the only group that can actually make if official.
[QUOTE=codemaster85;34029110]Bush got permission from congress the week right after 9/11 to start the Iraq war. The president can declare war, but congress is the only group that can actually make if official.[/QUOTE] I'll have to ask for a source on that one.
[QUOTE=person11;34029133]I'll have to ask for a source on that one.[/QUOTE] For declaration of war: In the United States, Congress, which makes the rules for the military, has the power under the constitution to "declare war" [url]http://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Declaration_of_war[/url] By the constitution, the president can control all of the military for 24 hours with no need for congressional approval. [editline]3rd January 2012[/editline] Anyway point is Obama has tried changing things, but congress is a bitch that is lobbied a fuck ton and just thinks about their money and not the good of the people.
I'm going to be in Russia (Moscow and St. Petersburg) for a school trip during their elections. Awesome.
No voting for Latvia. :(
So the president can go to war for 24hrs? So technically he could authorize the invasion of Canada for 24hrs if he was drunk.
[QUOTE=Ale994145;34028625]Hopefully, a Communist will be elected in Russia and will do a way with the stupid system of Democracy.[/QUOTE] Nigga you gay
[QUOTE=codemaster85;34029202]For declaration of war: In the United States, Congress, which makes the rules for the military, has the power under the constitution to "declare war" [url]http://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Declaration_of_war[/url] By the constitution, the president can control all of the military for 24 hours with no need for congressional approval. [editline]3rd January 2012[/editline] Anyway point is Obama has tried changing things, but congress is a bitch that is lobbied a fuck ton and just thinks about their money and not the good of the people.[/QUOTE] I meant this: [quote]Bush got permission from congress the week right after 9/11 to start the Iraq war.[/quote]
Yeah im pretty sure it wasn't a "declaration of war"
[QUOTE=billyjohn86;34028476]Obama isn't doing anything he promised though, he is being pushed around as if he has no backbone. This "change" he described has not come yet?[/QUOTE] The democrats are in the majority with around 52% of the votes. How the fuck do you expect them to get anything through congress when 46% categorically says "No" regardless of the bill in question? Of course they couldn't get any of the major changes through as they promised. Vetoing the NDAA however, that was something he definitely could have done, yet didn't, and I think it's worth asking why he didn't keep that promise.
Sorry, you need to Log In to post a reply to this thread.