Mid-Term Elections!

Page 5 of 6 [ 92 posts ] Go to page Previous 1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6 Next

Previous topic | Next topic

skafather84
Veteran
Veteran

Joined: 20 Mar 2006
Age: 41
Gender: Male
Posts: 9,848
Location: New Orleans, LA

03 Nov 2010, 11:58 am

mcg wrote:

Ambrose_Rotten wrote:

John_Browning wrote:

Does that mean the left is free of wackos? Do eco-terrorists, pot smoking hippies, anarchists, and Black and Mexican militant groups not count as wacko?

Since when have anarchists been left-wing?

There are collectivist anarchists, haha.

I think those are called communists.

_________________
Wherever they burn books they will also, in the end, burn human beings. ~Heinrich Heine, Almansor, 1823

?I wouldn't recommend sex, drugs or insanity for everyone, but they've always worked for me.? - Hunter S. Thompson

skafather84
Veteran
Veteran

Joined: 20 Mar 2006
Age: 41
Gender: Male
Posts: 9,848
Location: New Orleans, LA

03 Nov 2010, 1:37 pm

[youtube]http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=QDS2LScjkNc[/youtube]

Cenk nails it.

Inuyasha
Veteran
Veteran

Joined: 12 Jan 2009
Age: 43
Gender: Male
Posts: 9,745

03 Nov 2010, 4:49 pm

visagrunt wrote:

As an outsider, the way I see it is that the "GOP" component of the Republican Party (the establishment republicans) are currently in a two front war, squeezed between the Democrats on the Centre and the Tea Party on the right. And whichever way they react, they will provide the Democrats with an opportunity to secure four more years in the White House.

If they try to take on the Tea Party on their own turf they risk alienating the center, leaving it open for the Democrats, and threatening a further split in the party.

The Tea Party consists of Republicans, Independents, and some Democrats. And notice we held primaries with Tea Party candidates for a reason and then when that was done a lot of us united behind the winner of the primary. We can have serious disagreements without having a total civil war.

visagrunt wrote:

A far better strategy is to engage with the conservative Democrats and demonstrate that the Republican leadership is capable of governing. The Tea Party may be nothing more that a flash in the pan that will lose its momentum as the economic recovery begins to firm up. If that's the case, the long term strategy should be to make a bid for the center. The Democrats benefit under this strategy because they have to move to the center to shore up their position, increasingly the liklihood of bipartisan initiatives for which they can share credit.

Not likely to happen, because pretty much every conservative Democrat in the house is gone. The Democrats in Government are even more left wing overall than they were before this election. The fact that Republicans do not have control of the senate but are rather close to having the majority means that Dems can't point fingers effectively in 2012. Further I don't think Obama is going to compromise on anything because he is too partisan, and is also too arrogant to admit he went in the wrong direction.

Furthermore, he has problems calling terrorists the enemy, yet he had no problem calling Republicans and other that disagree with him enemies.

visagrunt wrote:

It's 1994 all over again--but this time with a Speaker who has a strong motivation to work cooperatively.

From the House standpoint the Dems lost even more seats than they did in 1994.

Jacoby
Veteran
Veteran

Joined: 10 Dec 2007
Gender: Male
Posts: 14,284
Location: Arizona

03 Nov 2010, 4:57 pm

California pisses me off. Boxer, Pelosi, Moonbeam? The least they could do is pass Prop 19 but no.

Inuyasha
Veteran
Veteran

Joined: 12 Jan 2009
Age: 43
Gender: Male
Posts: 9,745

03 Nov 2010, 5:08 pm

Jacoby wrote:

California pisses me off. Boxer, Pelosi, Moonbeam? The least they could do is pass Prop 19 but no.

Ah the political machine in California is still alive and well.

It was funny that the Dems lost the Senate seat in Illinois DESPITE the Chicago machine.

nthach
Veteran
Veteran

Joined: 28 Feb 2008
Age: 41
Gender: Male
Posts: 1,457
Location: SF Bay Area

03 Nov 2010, 5:13 pm

Jacoby wrote:

California pisses me off. Boxer, Pelosi, Moonbeam? The least they could do is pass Prop 19 but no.

I'm sad too. But Brown's done a better job getting the Democratic machine in motion, Whitman didn't do much to put her in the positive. But Boxer's a tired old liberal hag and so is Pelosi. The California Dems are too intertwined with the unions here. The state GOP here is a JOKE. Let's pray Cali won't become the same cesspool Oakland is.

At least Pelosi's got a nice sidewalk in the Tenderloin she can sell her self on...

skafather84
Veteran
Veteran

Joined: 20 Mar 2006
Age: 41
Gender: Male
Posts: 9,848
Location: New Orleans, LA

03 Nov 2010, 5:15 pm

Jacoby wrote:

California pisses me off. Boxer, Pelosi, Moonbeam? The least they could do is pass Prop 19 but no.

Actually prop 19 not passing was probably for the best:

http://votetaxcannabis2010.blogspot.com ... 0-tax.html

nthach
Veteran
Veteran

Joined: 28 Feb 2008
Age: 41
Gender: Male
Posts: 1,457
Location: SF Bay Area

03 Nov 2010, 5:17 pm

skafather84 wrote:

Jacoby wrote:

California pisses me off. Boxer, Pelosi, Moonbeam? The least they could do is pass Prop 19 but no.

Actually prop 19 not passing was probably for the best:

http://votetaxcannabis2010.blogspot.com ... 0-tax.html

I know Humboldt County was vehemently opposed to it. But I also think the drug companies by way of the police officers associations poured money into the no vote - it's a smack in the face for George Soros...

naturalplastic
Veteran
Veteran

Joined: 26 Aug 2010
Age: 71
Gender: Male
Posts: 35,189
Location: temperate zone

03 Nov 2010, 6:18 pm

Awesomelyglorious wrote:

Actually, it doesn't really matter, and everything people tell you about this is BS. Vote only if you like doing so. You'll have more influence if you just write letters, sign petitions, and other things, and most of those don't take as much time/effort.

Thats like saying "when traveling to Europe dont to go to the trouble of buying an airline ticket, just put on water wings and swim to Europe across the Atlantic Ocean."

Writing letters and signing petetions are far more time consuming than voting, and less effective ( an angry letter doesnt hurt a politician as much as losing a vote) And if you're concerened and informed enough to write letters and sign petitions why would you abstain from voting anyway?

mcg
Veteran
Veteran

Joined: 26 Jan 2010
Age: 36
Gender: Male
Posts: 538
Location: Sacramento

03 Nov 2010, 6:34 pm

It usually doesn't come down to one vote.

Inuyasha
Veteran
Veteran

Joined: 12 Jan 2009
Age: 43
Gender: Male
Posts: 9,745

03 Nov 2010, 8:26 pm

mcg wrote:

It usually doesn't come down to one vote.

True but usually if you are really enraged about something that a politician has done, you probably aren't the only one so you're just contributing another vote to a wave of votes to kick them out.

How many Committee Chairmen that were Democrats get shown the door yesterday, I know of at least 2.

Orwell
Veteran
Veteran

Joined: 8 Aug 2007
Age: 36
Gender: Male
Posts: 12,518
Location: Room 101

03 Nov 2010, 8:35 pm

Inuyasha wrote:

mcg wrote:

It usually doesn't come down to one vote.

True but usually if you are really enraged about something that a politician has done, you probably aren't the only one so you're just contributing another vote to a wave of votes to kick them out.

Ah, but I do not control or speak for any collective group of voters. I have control over my own individual vote, and the power of that vote is exactly zero. The typical clichéd response I get when I point this out is someone asking "What if everyone thought that way?" To which I merely reiterate: I do not control what other people think or do, so such a consideration is irrelevant.

_________________
WAR IS PEACE
FREEDOM IS SLAVERY
IGNORANCE IS STRENGTH

auntblabby
Veteran
Veteran

Joined: 12 Feb 2010
Gender: Male
Posts: 115,276
Location: the island of defective toy santas

03 Nov 2010, 9:42 pm

Inuyasha wrote:

Any other personal attacks you want to fire my way?

so the fact that i am a democrat who refuses to lie down and play republican is a personal attack to you? i congradulated you on your win and you are offended? you just can't please some people :roll:

Inuyasha wrote:

It's actually a good thing the Republicans are against universal health care because I can sue an insurance company if they are doing something illegal. If they are doing something unethical I can contact the media and stockholders don't like negative publicity. You don't have nearly as much legal recourse if the government is running it.

whatever. say whatever you will, it is all the same to me.

xenon13
Veteran
Veteran

Joined: 13 Dec 2008
Age: 50
Gender: Male
Posts: 3,638

03 Nov 2010, 11:48 pm

When the government bungles health care people find out about it and it's an embarrassment to the government and authorities and politicians. When the insurance companies do it they use all sorts of diversionary tactics and fall back on the favourite "the business of business is business" - their job is to make money and half the country cry "Amen!" at such a reply.

ruveyn
Veteran
Veteran

Joined: 21 Sep 2008
Age: 89
Gender: Male
Posts: 31,502
Location: New Jersey

04 Nov 2010, 8:21 am

xenon13 wrote:

Legal restrictions on the health insurance business at the State level do not help matters. Both the Fed and the State have been in bed with the corporate interests long before I was born. We really do not have a free market in medical insurance or medical services. However, things were not as bad as they are now when I was a kid. In those days having Blue Cross and Blue Shield covered just about everything including hospitalization. The catch there is that the insurance was available through one's employer and those out of work were also out of luck.

ruveyn

auntblabby
Veteran
Veteran

Joined: 12 Feb 2010
Gender: Male
Posts: 115,276
Location: the island of defective toy santas

04 Nov 2010, 8:36 pm

xenon13 wrote:

"never underestimate voters' ability to vote against their best interests." - [h.l. mencken]
i would bet good money, that the bulk of voters who chose republican pols did so only because "the enemy of my enemy is my friend." IOW, the repubs are widely perceived as anti-poor, anti-gay, anti-non-christian, so people with prejudices against those groups voted republican in the belief that they were "sticking it" to those people. they did this even though republican policies skew heavily towards the ultra-wealthy [wall street] and NOT to average folk [main street].

Page 5 of 6 [ 92 posts ] Go to page Previous 1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6 Next

Jump to:

Mid-Term Elections! Post Reply New Topic

Mid-Term Elections!