View Full Version : fuck election day
eagle2
11-07-2010, 01:03 PM
Does he want to outlaw abortion? Does he want to outlaw prostitution? Does he want schools in the Netherlands to stop teaching children about contraception and only teach "abstinence only" education?
Zinaida
11-07-2010, 06:27 PM
fuck elections. i dont believe in voting because (duh) i dont believe in the system.
to sum up how i feel about voting: anyone who thinks they are excersising some sort of power by running to the polls and complacently choosing the lesser of two evils is delusional IMO. and self righteous for assuming you are better than those who chose not to vote.
Same here.
jester214
11-07-2010, 08:14 PM
Does he want to repeal and defund universal healthcare? Does he want to make pot illegal? Is he opposed to reducing carbon emissions?
Pot is illegal in the Netherlands... Its why the can shut down any coffee shop in Amsterdam anytime they want. It's considered a "soft drug" but is still not legal. And I don't know about this guy in particular but there has been a wave in recent years to crack down on both weed and prostitution in the Netherlands.
I'd also like you to find me some proof that Republicans are in favor of increasing carbon emissions. I'm talking an actual quote here, not some misconstrued thing they did that "means" they want to increase carbon emmissions.
Seriously go compare the left parties in Europe to the Democrats... You're trying to make comparison on two vastly different political landscapes just so you can pretend the GOP is some kind of world wide "Fringe Party" when it is so clearly not.
Melonie
11-08-2010, 04:49 AM
You're trying to make comparison on two vastly different political landscapes just so you can pretend the GOP is some kind of world wide "Fringe Party"
And before anybody actually starts going down this path, for any sort of accurate comparison to the USA it is necessary to only 'count' western democracies that actually have low skill level immigrant populations and/or actually allow or tolerate immigration.
The favorite 'spin' re the supposed success of 'liberal' western european 'welfare states' is to include western european countries who have erected a 'reverse Berlin wall' around their countries re legal and illegal immigration. This refers to Sweden, Switzerland, Norway, etc. Yes there is some evidence that socialized economies can work in these countries ... but that arguable fact is contingent on A. an existing population that is homogeneous, B. an existing population with a very low birth rate, C. denial of residency and social welfare benefits to non-citizens with low skill levels, D. active deportation policies.
If you wish to perform any sort of accurate comparison with the US, try focusing on western european countries with a significant and growing subgroup of poorly assimilated, high birth rate, low skill level 'minorities'.
eagle2
11-08-2010, 09:49 AM
Pot is illegal in the Netherlands... Its why the can shut down any coffee shop in Amsterdam anytime they want. It's considered a "soft drug" but is still not legal. And I don't know about this guy in particular but there has been a wave in recent years to crack down on both weed and prostitution in the Netherlands.
Pot is legal for personal use (up to 5 grams per day).
I'd also like you to find me some proof that Republicans are in favor of increasing carbon emissions. I'm talking an actual quote here, not some misconstrued thing they did that "means" they want to increase carbon emmissions.
It's common knowledge. The Republicans are opposed to any laws regulating carbon emissions. The majority of Republicans probably deny global warming is caused by carbon emissions. Under the Bush Administration, the EPA refused to regulate carbon emissions. They had to be taken to court.
http://environment.about.com/od/environmentallawpolicy/a/epa_greenhouse.htm
Seriously go compare the left parties in Europe to the Democrats... You're trying to make comparison on two vastly different political landscapes just so you can pretend the GOP is some kind of world wide "Fringe Party" when it is so clearly not.
I'm sorry, but based on their positions, the GOP would be considered a fringe party in any other western country with an educated, informed population. You can't deny it. The GOP advocates outlawing abortion, abstinence-only sex education, eliminating the minimum wage, and teaching creationism fairy tales. These are all fringe positions in any other westernized country. You can't deny it. What other westernized country would have a vice president (or equivalent) candidate that believes in creationist fairy tales, for one of their major parties, and still be taken seriously?
firemaiden04
11-08-2010, 11:28 AM
^ In addition, the Tea Party nutjobs continuously run their mouths about getting back to our roots, and the Christian morals and principles of the founding fathers.
This country was NOT founded on Christianity. Everyone keeps talking about the Mayflower. That was an anomaly. The majority of colonies formed were business ventures by rich men back in England. They wanted to make money. Religion had nothing to do with it. And the British were not the only ones who had stakes here. The French were very active as fur traders and trappers, and the Spanish were very active further south in their search for gold, silver, and spices (including sugar). The French and Spanish actively assimilated the native tribes. They intermarried and adopted a lot of customs. The British, however, had zero interest in the natives; they wanted the land, and they had no qualms about lying and stealing from the natives to get it. Then if you fast forward to the Revolution, the founding fathers were NOT Christians. They were Deists. They did not believe ANY religion should have a place in the governing of the United States. Examples:
"This would be the best of all possible worlds, if there were no religion in it."
-John Adams
"Millions of innocent men, women and children, since the introduction of Christianity, have been burnt, tortured, fined, imprisoned; yet we have not advanced an inch towards uniformity. What has been the effect of coercion? To make one half the world fools, and the other half hypocrites. To support roguery and error all over the earth."
-Thomas Jefferson
So, in conclusion, when the Tea Party morons (or the Tea Baggers, as my dad insists on calling them) are basing so much of their principles and their rousing speeches on "the good old days" and "getting back to the roots that our founding fathers believed in" and all their other propaganda on historical "facts" that AREN'T TRUE...I immediately have ZERO respect for the organization. They are liars and the people who are leading it either don't know their American History (which is embarrassing), or they know perfectly well that they aren't telling the truth, but use the lies to mislead and work up the ignorant and unhappy people in this country. And a good majority of the GOP is caving to their demands instead of having the balls to say, "You people are crazy and I'm not going to do what you tell me to." They're just as big a bunch of pussies as most Democrats.
Kellydancer
11-08-2010, 12:01 PM
^ In addition, the Tea Party nutjobs continuously run their mouths about getting back to our roots, and the Christian morals and principles of the founding fathers.
This country was NOT founded on Christianity. Everyone keeps talking about the Mayflower. That was an anomaly. The majority of colonies formed were business ventures by rich men back in England. They wanted to make money. Religion had nothing to do with it. And the British were not the only ones who had stakes here. The French were very active as fur traders and trappers, and the Spanish were very active further south in their search for gold, silver, and spices (including sugar). The French and Spanish actively assimilated the native tribes. They intermarried and adopted a lot of customs. The British, however, had zero interest in the natives; they wanted the land, and they had no qualms about lying and stealing from the natives to get it. Then if you fast forward to the Revolution, the founding fathers were NOT Christians. They were Deists. They did not believe ANY religion should have a place in the governing of the United States. Examples:
"This would be the best of all possible worlds, if there were no religion in it."
-John Adams
"Millions of innocent men, women and children, since the introduction of Christianity, have been burnt, tortured, fined, imprisoned; yet we have not advanced an inch towards uniformity. What has been the effect of coercion? To make one half the world fools, and the other half hypocrites. To support roguery and error all over the earth."
-Thomas Jefferson
So, in conclusion, when the Tea Party morons (or the Tea Baggers, as my dad insists on calling them) are basing so much of their principles and their rousing speeches on "the good old days" and "getting back to the roots that our founding fathers believed in" and all their other propaganda on historical "facts" that AREN'T TRUE...I immediately have ZERO respect for the organization. They are liars and the people who are leading it either don't know their American History (which is embarrassing), or they know perfectly well that they aren't telling the truth, but use the lies to mislead and work up the ignorant and unhappy people in this country. And a good majority of the GOP is caving to their demands instead of having the balls to say, "You people are crazy and I'm not going to do what you tell me to." They're just as big a bunch of pussies as most Democrats.
The original tea party people were pretty rational non party independents (probably closer to Libertarianism). They wanted to cut taxes and it was a financial issue. I think most of these people went to the new coffee party. The tea party, which started with rational ideas became hijacked by the same nutjobs who took over the Republican Party. It's hard to remember, but at one point the Republican Party was the more progressive party and had some very admirable presidents (Lincoln, Teddy Roosevelt, etc). They were the ones who pushed for the abolition for slavery and women's rights. Then when Reagan ran for president that's when they started taking over the Republican Party and really pushed out a lot of the moderates. There are still many moderate Republicans but they aren't as common as the hard right.
Now because people are catching on, they are pretending to be against higher taxes. That's not their real agenda though. Their real agenda is to outlaw abortion, make women second class citizens, make everyone poor and the rich richer.
firemaiden04
11-08-2010, 12:11 PM
^ I agree that everything is just moving towards the right. The Republicans are generally right-wing enough to be considered extremists, and the Democrats are fairly moderate. I don't feel that there is a "liberal" party anymore. Though, of course, according to Republicans, they're as moderate as moderate could be and we're all socialists.
Kellydancer
11-08-2010, 12:22 PM
^ I agree that everything is just moving towards the right. The Republicans are generally right-wing enough to be considered extremists, and the Democrats are fairly moderate. I don't feel that there is a "liberal" party anymore. Though, of course, according to Republicans, they're as moderate as moderate could be and we're all socialists.
Yeah and that is the problem. I've heard some politicians called moderate even though they are definitely conservative. A Democratic president like Clinton would have been considered a moderate Republican years ago. The Democratic party is not for liberals anymore (that would be the Greens or the Socialist party). The Republican Party today is not the one of years ago. In fact former president Gerald Ford even mentioned something like this awhile back on how he didn't like the rightwingers taking over the Republican Party. His wife Betty Ford would never be considered a Republican today,
jester214
11-08-2010, 01:49 PM
Pot is legal for personal use (up to 5 grams per day).
It's common knowledge. The Republicans are opposed to any laws regulating carbon emissions. The majority of Republicans probably deny global warming is caused by carbon emissions. Under the Bush Administration, the EPA refused to regulate carbon emissions. They had to be taken to court.
http://environment.about.com/od/environmentallawpolicy/a/epa_greenhouse.htm
I'm sorry, but based on their positions, the GOP would be considered a fringe party in any other western country with an educated, informed population. You can't deny it. The GOP advocates outlawing abortion, abstinence-only sex education, eliminating the minimum wage, and teaching creationism fairy tales. These are all fringe positions in any other westernized country. You can't deny it. What other westernized country would have a vice president (or equivalent) candidate that believes in creationist fairy tales, for one of their major parties, and still be taken seriously?
Wrong. Even possession or production for personal consumption is a misdemeanor in the Netherlands. It's simply not enforced under the "soft" drug policies.
"It's common knowledge". According to recent polls it's "common knowledge" in this country that Obama is a Muslim...
So you're basing your information off of "common knowledge" and inaccuracies... Well I think this discussion is done.
jester214
11-08-2010, 01:53 PM
^ I agree that everything is just moving towards the right. The Republicans are generally right-wing enough to be considered extremists, and the Democrats are fairly moderate. I don't feel that there is a "liberal" party anymore. Though, of course, according to Republicans, they're as moderate as moderate could be and we're all socialists.
That's the problem, everyone wants to label the other side as all extremists. We let the people who yell the loudest determine the "makeup" of our parties. The vast majority of Republicans AND Democrats are technically moderates.
I'm a registered independent, fiscally conservative/moderate, and generally pretty liberal when it comes to social matters. Yet I lean Republican generally because fiscal matters are more important to me than social matters. Yet people reguarly assume I'm anti-abortion, pro-destroying the environment, and a radical christian who hates homosexuals.
Republican and Democrats mean a lot more than extreme left and right. Yet people on both sides of the spectrums refuse to accept that.
jester214
11-08-2010, 01:58 PM
This country was NOT founded on Christianity.
It wasn't founded on Christianity but we do have some very deep religious/Christian roots.
And while the most vocal and well known founding fathers were probably deists of one variety or another. Many of the lesser known founding fathers were very relgious men.
I don't like it when people try and claim America was a giant colony founded as a outpost of Christianity, but nor do I agree with people who suggest it was made as a country that didn't embrace religion to a certain leve.
eagle2
11-08-2010, 02:11 PM
Wrong. Even possession or production for personal consumption is a misdemeanor in the Netherlands. It's simply not enforced under the "soft" drug policies.
"It's common knowledge". According to recent polls it's "common knowledge" in this country that Obama is a Muslim...
So you're basing your information off of "common knowledge" and inaccuracies... Well I think this discussion is done.
If you can't handle the fact that your party would be considered the right-wing fringe in any other western country, that's too bad. It doesn't make it any less true.
Kellydancer
11-08-2010, 02:18 PM
That's the problem, everyone wants to label the other side as all extremists. We let the people who yell the loudest determine the "makeup" of our parties. The vast majority of Republicans AND Democrats are technically moderates.
I'm a registered independent, fiscally conservative/moderate, and generally pretty liberal when it comes to social matters. Yet I lean Republican generally because fiscal matters are more important to me than social matters. Yet people reguarly assume I'm anti-abortion, pro-destroying the environment, and a radical christian who hates homosexuals.
Republican and Democrats mean a lot more than extreme left and right. Yet people on both sides of the spectrums refuse to accept that.
If you are voting for people who are anti abortion then yes people will see you as that because that candidate made it known that's how they feel. In the Illinois race for governor I knew people voting for the Republican candidate because he opposes a tax hike, unlike the Dem governor. However many of these were people that would be affected if he had gotten in because he opposes equal pay, abortion in all cases, etc. I can't even remember the last Democratic candidate for president who was a far left liberal (and NO, Obama is NOT a far left liberal), unlike the Republicans, where it's very hard for a moderate Republican to run because of the religious right. Even when a moderate runs he doesn't usually win the primaries.
This is just national. In Illinois we have many moderate Republicans and I voted for several of them. I am NOT a Dem or Rep because neither speaks for me. I probably lean more Libertarian than anything else but will NEVER vote for a man (and it's usually men) who want to take away my rights as a woman.
Melonie
11-08-2010, 03:38 PM
taking a step sideways, all of the above discussion is basically a microcosm of exactly what happened on election day. The 'blue' states became an even deeper blue. The 'red' states became an even brighter red. There is little if any common ground between them. There is also little chance of either group convincing supporters of the other group that they should change their position. Thus the future direction clearly points to increased conflict. Evidence of that escalating conflict is already coming in ...
... about Texas deliberating a new Arizona-like immigration law
... "California: The Lindsay Lohan of States
Sacramento is headed for trouble again, and it shouldn't expect a bailout."
... 'President Obama isolated ahead of 2012"
eagle2
11-08-2010, 04:26 PM
http://radio.woai.com/cc-common/news/sections/newsarticle.html?feed=119078&article=7811998 ... about Texas deliberating a new Arizona-like immigration law
Proposing/passing laws like this could seriously harm the GOP over the long run. In California, Colorado, and Nevada, Hispanic voters overwhelming voted for Democratic candidates, which resulted in Democratic victories in three Senate races and the California governor race. As Hispanics are the fast growing segment of the population, this could make it impossible for Republicans to gain a majority in the future. Texas might even become a blue state.
Kellydancer
11-08-2010, 05:39 PM
I'm not so sure that states stayed the same. I am in a blue state (Illinois) yet we elected a Republican senator and several Republicans to state office. To be fair though many of these Republicans are often called "Democrat Lite" here because they are pro choice and other moderate social issues.
jester214
11-08-2010, 08:30 PM
If you are voting for people who are anti abortion then yes people will see you as that because that candidate made it known that's how they feel.
I see that as somewhat ridiculous, because no person agrees with everything the people they vote for supports. Unless they are in fact running for office and voting for themselves.
As far as Obama not being "far left"... Well he's not moderate either. Of the years he was in the Senate he was picked at least once, as one of the more liberal in the Senate.
Though I agree, he's not really "far left" but the spectrum is so skewed it's hard to say anymore. I still maintain that most people in this country are actually pretty moderate even if they deny it.
jester214
11-08-2010, 08:36 PM
If you can't handle the fact that your party would be considered the right-wing fringe in any other western country, that's too bad. It doesn't make it any less true.
My party?
I guess I've already seen your reading comprehension isn't strong so I'll repeat... I'm a registered Independent. I reguarly vote for Democrats. I voted for the current Governor of North Carolina (though I now regret that decision). Go ahead, go do some googling see what party she is.
eagle2
11-08-2010, 08:46 PM
Then why are you so adamant about defending the Republican Party?
Kellydancer
11-08-2010, 08:52 PM
I see that as somewhat ridiculous, because no person agrees with everything the people they vote for supports. Unless they are in fact running for office and voting for themselves.
As far as Obama not being "far left"... Well he's not moderate either. Of the years he was in the Senate he was picked at least once, as one of the more liberal in the Senate.
Though I agree, he's not really "far left" but the spectrum is so skewed it's hard to say anymore. I still maintain that most people in this country are actually pretty moderate even if they deny it.
Of course you won't agree with everything someone says, but some positions are beyond scary and I'd rather not vote than vote for someone who harbors racist, sexist or homophobic views.
jester214
11-08-2010, 08:54 PM
Then why are you so adamant about defending the Republican Party?
I would be just as adamant about someone making idiotic and completley incorrect statements about the Democratic Party. It's this attitude and ignorance that is one of the MAJOR problems with the politics in our country. I actually tipped my hat to John Stewart and Stephen Colbert (normally I think the former is a smug bastard, while the latter is just annoying) for the rally they had.
The people who scream the loudest are the only ones being heard in both parties, and instead of the more rationale (and often the majority) members trying to fix the problem they are just standing idle. While the members of the opposition drink the koolaid about how evil and extremist the other side is.
I vote the person, not the party. I seriously think a lot of people just want to hate and blame others, Republican and Democrat.
jester214
11-08-2010, 08:58 PM
Of course you won't agree with everything someone says, but some positions are beyond scary and I'd rather not vote than vote for someone who harbors racist, sexist or homophobic views.
Well I think you'd be hardpressed to find someone who doesn't harbor racist, sexist or homophobic views... But I understand what you're saying.
At some point though I pick the person who I hope will do what's best for me and the people around me... I'll never like what everyone says, and I still maintain that lumping like that is bad for our politics/country and is just wrong.
eagle2
11-08-2010, 11:55 PM
I would be just as adamant about someone making idiotic and completley incorrect statements about the Democratic Party.
No, my statements are correct. The Republicans positions on a number of issues are extreme, and would be considered fringe in many other countries. Wanting to outlaw abortion is extreme. Opposing teaching about contraception in public schools is extreme. Opposing any type of health care reform that would provide insurance for all Americans is extreme. Supporting the teaching of creationist fairy tails in public schools is extreme. Opposing basic rights for homosexuals, such as the right to openly serve in the military, is extreme. These positions are widely supported in the Republican Party.
I personally know people who have suffered greatly because they could not get health insurance. There are people in this forum who are not able to get medical care they need because they don't have health insurance. The Republican Party has been fighting vehemently to prevent people like this from ever being able to get insurance. They do not care how much suffering they cause. Their ideology is going to take precedence over people every time.
It's this attitude and ignorance that is one of the MAJOR problems with the politics in our country. I actually tipped my hat to John Stewart and Stephen Colbert (normally I think the former is a smug bastard, while the latter is just annoying) for the rally they had.
No, it's the attitude and ignorance of treating the Republicans' extreme views as acceptable alternatives that is one of the MAJOR problems in this country. Republican policies have wrecked our country.
The people who scream the loudest are the only ones being heard in both parties, and instead of the more rationale (and often the majority) members trying to fix the problem they are just standing idle. While the members of the opposition drink the koolaid about how evil and extremist the other side is.
The Republicans never try to fix the problem. All they do is oppose everything the President/Democrats try to get passed. Look at the huge increase in the number of times the filibuster has been used since the Democrats have taken control of the Senate:
http://newsjunkiepost.com/wp-content/uploads/2010/03/Cloture-Invoked3Final.png
All they do is say "no" to everything.
I vote the person, not the party. I seriously think a lot of people just want to hate and blame others, Republican and Democrat.
No, I don't just want to hate and blame others, but I will blame the responsible party when their policies harm our country. It was the previous three Republican presidents that ran our nation's debt up to 13 trillion dollars, all so that the wealthiest Americans could become even wealthier. It was the previous Republican president that doubled our national debt and allowed the worst financial crisis in 80 years to occur. Besides the wrecked economy, he left our current President with a trillion dollar deficit to start out with. It's the Republican party that wants to impose their backward religious beliefs on others, such as opposing teaching contraception in public schools. As a result, our country has the highest teen pregnancy rate in the western world.
I'm not even a strong supporter of the Democratic Party. I have just become so disgusted with the Republicans because of all the harm they have done, and continue to do with whatever power they are given.
jester214
11-09-2010, 12:30 PM
^A couple hundred words there and nothing but inaccuracies, propaganda, and hate. If you can't even recognize there are major issues in both parties and pretty much the last 5 presidents (including Obama) have hurt this country, then there's no point talking to you.
Oh and for someone that doesn't want to hate and blame, you sure said Republicans in bold... a lot.
Done.
lopaw
11-09-2010, 09:00 PM
Our political system has become the loud-mouthed minority trying to speak for the apathetic majority.
Until the moderates in this country finally grow some balls and stand up to the extremist fringe from both ends, nothing will change.
Kellydancer
11-09-2010, 09:58 PM
Our political system has become the loud-mouthed minority trying to speak for the apathetic majority.
Until the moderates in this country finally grow some balls and stand up to the extremist fringe from both ends, nothing will change.
This is on the mark. This country is a moderate country and both the left and are both nutjobs.
Melonie
11-10-2010, 03:05 AM
Proposing/passing laws like this ( Arizona-like illegal immigrant law in Texas ) could seriously harm the GOP over the long run. In California, Colorado, and Nevada, Hispanic voters overwhelming voted for Democratic candidates, which resulted in Democratic victories in three Senate races and the California governor race. As Hispanics are the fast growing segment of the population, this could make it impossible for Republicans to gain a majority in the future. Texas might even become a blue state.
I'm going to resurrect this point because it's indeed important to the future. Arguably, California's and Nevada's hispanic vote was swayed, at least in part, by the negative portrayal of hispanic illegal immigrants in both mainstream media ( Meg's maid ) and in ill-conceived campaign advertising ( Sharon's gangs ) ... which prompted a general negative reaction by hispanic voters. While not a lot can be done about future mainstream media editorial policy, the 'amateur' mistake by Sharon Angle's campaign advert is already noted and won't be repeated.
On the flip side, new Florida senator elect Marco Rubio and many house of representative elections involving non-west coast states ( including several republican house victories in Texas ) were the result of hispanic voters supporting a republican candidate. Rubio and others campaigned on a positive theme i.e. America being the land of opportunity for the children of hispanic immigrants, with democratic tax and spend policies threatening that future opportunity. Rubio also managed to avoid being dragged into any specific discussions of illegal immigration. Rubio pulled off what even Bill Clinton could not, a 50+% victory in a three way election.
The Machiavellians would tell you that, as a potentially nationally 'marketable' candidate, Marco Rubio's election shares many traits with Barack Obama's election in 2004.
Our political system has become the loud-mouthed minority trying to speak for the apathetic majority.
except in this year's election, the apathetic majority could no longer afford ( literally ! ) to remain apathetic.
I would also point out that, in lots of cases, republican candidates put on the 2010 ballot in historically 'blue' states got there for an easy to understand but totally 'wrong' reason. They were politically inexperienced candidates, but with lots and lots of personal money behind them. Meg Whitman, Carly Fiorina, Paladino in NY, McMahon in CT etc. were all testaments to the Machiavellian fact that having to buy local media exposure ( where local media outlets tend to provide free and favorable coverage to their democratic opponents ) is tremendously expensive, plus the fact that national level republican party campaign monies are 'better spent' supporting republican candidates in less 'blue' states who have more realistic chances of victory.
For better or worse, it's extremely difficult to find politically experienced, media 'marketable' potential republican candidates who also happen to be multi-millionaires. And absent political saavy and/or a 'marketable' public image, it's virtually impossible to actually win elections even if enough personal money is available to get your message out to 'blue' state voters. And on the flip side, politically savvy candidates with 'marketable' public images that lack sufficient funding to get their message out to 'blue' state voters can't win elections either. Thus the Machiavellians would tell you that 'blue' state and 'red' state polarization will only increase in the future ... with national elections thus being decided by the voters of 'flyover' states. And in case you hadn't noticed, those 'flyover' states picked up a significantly brighter 'red' hue in the last election ... including formerly 'blue' tinted flyover states like PA and WI !
~
The majority of the hispanic population in Florida is comprised of Cubans, and yes i believe that helped Marco Rubio and the republicans down here. I think it's a mistake to think of latinos as one homogeneous group though, Arizona and Nevada Mexicans won't have any connection to someone like Rubio.
Melonie
11-10-2010, 08:45 AM
^^^ well, that reflects back to a similar claim from some quarters in 2008 in regard to Barack Obama not being 'black enough' to be accepted by urban black American voters. Even though Obama did not come from 'slave blood' and had not been 'down for the struggle' ( quote Al Sharpton not mine ), he still garnered over 90% of black American votes ! I'm not sure that this means much, however, given that black American voters also cast 90% votes for rich white liberal democrats in past presidential elections.
While this is wild speculation, consider a possible scenario where Marco Rubio precisely follows Barack Obama's footsteps ... but on the republican side. After serving only part of his first senate term, Rubio runs for the republican presidential nomination in 2012 against ... WHO ? Sarah Palin ( like Hilary in 2008, too polarizing ), Texas gov. Perry ( like Gov. Richardson in 2008, too hardline ), John Boehner ( like Kucinich in 2008, too wishy washy ).
Rubio then winds up as the republican candidate for president against WHO ? Barack Obama ( who like John McCain in 2008 will represent continuation of unpopular policies from the previous 4 years ) ? In that scenario, what is your prognostication as to the likely percentage of hispanic voters who will cast their vote for Barack Obama ( who by the way will have broken all his campaign promises to hispanics in regard to amnesty / guest worker programs etc. which have zero chance of future passage against a republican house majority ) versus Marco Rubio ?
Granted that there are already Machiavellian speculations that the true 'powers that be' behind the democratic party ( i.e. George Soros, unions, Wall St. ) may move to convince Barack to voluntarily step down after his first term, thus opening the 2012 election for other democratic candidates ... but with virtually every seriously 'electible' democratic alternative being a rich white liberal ! Again the same question as to the probability of hispanic voters choosing to support a rich white liberal versus Marco Rubio.
The recent Nevada election saw hispanic voters support semi-rich white liberal Harry Reid versus zero political experience / fairly extreme position / underfunded tea party candidate Sharon Angle ( who also ran very negative hispanic image campaign ads ) to the point where Harry won a narrow I repeat narrow victory. Marco Rubio's 2012 presidential campaign will have no such political inexperience / extreme position / underfunding problems !
As to the recent Arizona election results, clearly that was a referendum over gov. Jan Brewer's controversial state enforcement of immigration law. By 2012 the legality issue will be settled ... raising the question of how many 2010 Arizona ( or Nevada or Texas ) hispanic votes will still be countable in 2012 if future voters are required to produce proof of citizenship in order to have their vote counted ( as opposed to producing a utility bill / driver's license only proving their residency, legal or otherwise ) !
The topic of Rubio for president in 2012 is garnering a fair amount of speculation already ...
... with perhaps the most 'telling' observation being that the republican 'establishment' immediately selected Marco Rubio as the republican voice to directly face off against Obama, i.e. a weekly radio address rebuttal re tax policy, before he is even seated in Washington DC.
~
^^^ well, that reflects back to a similar claim from some quarters in 2008 in regard to Barack Obama not being 'black enough' to be accepted by urban black American voters. Even though Obama did not come from 'slave blood' and had not been 'down for the struggle' ( quote Al Sharpton not mine ), he still garnered over 90% of black American votes ! I'm not sure that this means much, however, given that black American voters also cast 90% votes for rich white liberal democrats in past presidential elections.
~
Since Al gore (http://www.ropercenter.uconn.edu/elections/how_groups_voted/voted_00.html) also got 90% of the African American vote and John Kerry (http://www.gallup.com/poll/107110/obamas-support-similar-kerrys-2004.aspx) got 88% of the African American vote I'd say it doesn't mean jack squat. Not that i am disagreeing with you about Rubio, so far he has gotten all of the Tea Party support without outwardly showing any of the usual Tea Party stupidity and incompetence that dooms other candidates like Palin, which is overall a good sign for him.
Melonie
11-10-2010, 01:33 PM
^^^ agreed that Marco Rubio ( or his mentors ) have already taken a public image lesson from 2008 i.e. 'Barack the Magic Negro'. And before anybody jumps, I'm referring to the original LA Times 'Magic Negro' analysis at not the parody song !
eagle2
11-10-2010, 05:48 PM
This is on the mark. This country is a moderate country and both the left and are both nutjobs.
I agree. I don't like the extremists on both sides either. Unfortunately, the Republican Party is under the control of these nutjobs. In the Republican Party, the inmates have completely taken over the asylum. Here's a recent example of one of the inmates speaking in Congress:
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=_7h08RDYA5E&playnext=1&list=PL6E9C16D0089875C0&index=27
His argument against Cap and Trade is that, in the Bible, God promised Noah that he would not destroy the world. This inmate is currently seeking the the Energy and Commerce Committee chairmanship. He also claims that there is not enough carbon dioxide in the atmosphere. Jester needs to tell him that Republicans are not in favor of increasing carbon emissions. LOL!
Kelly,
I'm sorry to say, this inmate is one of the representatives from your state.
Kellydancer
11-10-2010, 05:52 PM
I agree. I don't like the extremists on both sides either. Unfortunately, the Republican Party is under the control of these nutjobs. In the Republican Party, the inmates have completely taken over the asylum. Here's a recent example of one of the inmates speaking in Congress:
His argument against Cap and Trade is that, in the Bible, God promised Noah that he would not destroy the world. This inmate is currently seeking the the Energy and Commerce Committee chairmanship. He also claims that there is not enough carbon dioxide in the atmosphere. Jester needs to tell him that Republicans are not in favor of increasing carbon emissions. LOL!
Kelly,
I'm sorry to say, this inmate is one of the representatives from your state.
Yeah that Shimkus is a real nutjob. For some reason certain areas in Illinois elect these knotheads. I will agree absolutely that the Republicans were taken over by the religious extremists morons while the Democrats have moved to the center. If the Republicans were more moderate more people would vote for them. But because the right wing extremists have no lives they keep voting the moderates out of office.
Actually the sad thing is that people DID vote for them. Granted, the most insane ones like Angle and O'Donnell did lose but plenty of crazy ones did get elected. And it's just plain depressing to think that 40+% of the population of one state thinks someone who believes there is non existent towns in the U.S. living under sharia law or that mexicans and asians look the same is someone that should be a member of congress, the fact that anyone other than their family voted for them simply scares the shit out of me.
Melonie
11-11-2010, 10:51 AM
Actually the sad thing is that people DID vote for them. Granted, the most insane ones like Angle and O'Donnell did lose but plenty of crazy ones did get elected.
sad or otherwise, the fact of the past election results were that a whole lot of voters chose to make Reid vs Angle a close race ( Harry only won his hometown by 3 votes per this morning's Sky News ). In other elections where the republican candidate was better 'polished' or better funded or employed more savvy campaign advertizing, the republican generally won. Outside of liberal bastions in the northeast states and west coast states, republicans generally won big ! The corrolary of course is that, based on your comments, voters in all of the 'flyover' states that overwhelmingly supported republicans are crazy ! And the flip side viewpoint from those 'flyover' states is that the voters in northeast and west coast states are equally crazy.
Again, this comes back to a conclusion that American politics is becoming increasingly polarized ... which will lead to very little happening in the way of 'middle ground' agreements, and an unprecedented amount of bitter political conflict - with the most urgent area of conflict being economic / tax policy ( that is already beginning to flood mainstream news media ).
sad or otherwise, the fact of the past election results were that a whole lot of voters chose to make Reid vs Angle a close race ( Harry only won his hometown by 3 votes per this morning's Sky News ).
Yeah, but before Angle won the primary Reid was 12-15 points BEHIND according to most pollsters, there was and there is a LOT of hate for him out there. That should have been a huge victory for the Republicans, instead they managed to snatch defeat from the jaws of victory by nominating a crazy person. A close defeat is not a moral victory when you started out WAY ahead.
Elvia
11-12-2010, 03:03 AM
The people don't get to decide what programs get made into law or don't. Obama has to work with congress, he can't simply do whatever he pleases. And frankly any president who governed based on what polls said would be a horrible one and completely unnecessary, we might as well run our government via internet polls at that point.
and as I've said many many times and will say to you again, most of us who voted for Obama feel he rolled over too quickly. Like the democrats always do.
I believe the discussion this was brought up in was about voter apathy. The democrats are having to deal with voter apathy because everyone knows how easily and quickly they cave into the republicans.
Elvia
11-12-2010, 03:15 AM
I would be just as adamant about someone making idiotic and completley incorrect statements about the Democratic Party.
It is absolutely not an inaccurate statement to say that views of right wing candidates in the U.S. would be considered extreme in Western Europe. I never even thought anyone would question such a statement. They think our republicans are a freak show over there.
and as I've said many many times and will say to you again, most of us who voted for Obama feel he rolled over too quickly. Like the democrats always do.
I believe the discussion this was brought up in was about voter apathy. The democrats are having to deal with voter apathy because everyone knows how easily and quickly they cave into the republicans.
I don't think he rolled over too quickly i think he quickly realized he was going to get zero votes from the republicans no matter what he did, you gotta remember the healthcare bill was negotiated between democrats alone.
Our political system has become the loud-mouthed minority trying to speak for the apathetic majority.
I don't think it's ever been otherwise actually. It's an unfortunate reality of democracies. Churchill said:
"Democracy is the worst form of government, except for all those other forms that have been tried from time to time."
Until the moderates in this country finally grow some balls and stand up to the extremist fringe from both ends, nothing will change.
But then they wouldn't be moderates! ;D
But I agree, more or less.
Deogol
11-12-2010, 05:35 PM
I don't think it's ever been otherwise actually. It's an unfortunate reality of democracies.
I would rather they be screaming than shooting. Unfortunately, I am hearing and reading that the government does not represent millions upon millions of people who merely endure what is happening ... until they can no longer do so ... which with foreclosures, jobs going over seas, tuition hikes, porno-scanners in the airports ... my God the list is so long and growing.
If I described a country which had the largest number of it's citizens in prison, engaged in strip searches at travel locations, requires travel documents (ihre papiere, bitte!), routinely promised it's citizens safety nets and then corruption yanks it away, largest military in the region, engaged in multiple wars across the world, does it's best to make it's citizens defenseless either via weapon or by court procedure, bureaucracy designed to frustrate and metastasize citizens, has check points along the high way system with armed personnel ... would one think of USSR? Or of the USA?
Something has gone really really wrong. In the last three elections there have been major major changes of power as the citizens try to get reigns on this beast and yet it still runs wild. There is going to come a point where people affected, and apathy is pretty damn hard without a job or a home, are going to say FUCK IT and some shit is gonna start getting shot up and burned.
But then I look at this country full of people who mooo like cows and bay like sheep all the while mocking the french "for being surrender monkeys" over something that happened 60 years ago - as the french people go on country wide marches and riots over something that won't effect them for another 30 or 40 years (change in retirement age.) My observation is that the french people of today are not the same ones as those of 60 years ago and americans most certainly are not the same as those of 60 years ago.
KS_Stevia
11-12-2010, 05:55 PM
Got my new benefits package for 2011. All I can say is BOO! BOO! BOO!
WTF? Why did they have to fuck ALL of us?
I would rather they be screaming than shooting. Unfortunately, I am hearing and reading that the government does not represent millions upon millions of people who merely endure what is happening ... until they can no longer do so ... which with foreclosures, jobs going over seas, tuition hikes, porno-scanners in the airports ... my God the list is so long and growing.
If I described a country which had the largest number of it's citizens in prison, engaged in strip searches at travel locations, requires travel documents (ihre papiere, bitte!), routinely promised it's citizens safety nets and then corruption yanks it away, largest military in the region, engaged in multiple wars across the world, does it's best to make it's citizens defenseless either via weapon or by court procedure, bureaucracy designed to frustrate and metastasize citizens, has check points along the high way system with armed personnel ... would one think of USSR? Or of the USA?
Something has gone really really wrong. In the last three elections there have been major major changes of power as the citizens try to get reigns on this beast and yet it still runs wild. There is going to come a point where people affected, and apathy is pretty damn hard without a job or a home, are going to say FUCK IT and some shit is gonna start getting shot up and burned.
But then I look at this country full of people who mooo like cows and bay like sheep all the while mocking the french "for being surrender monkeys" over something that happened 60 years ago - as the french people go on country wide marches and riots over something that won't effect them for another 30 or 40 years (change in retirement age.) My observation is that the french people of today are not the same ones as those of 60 years ago and americans most certainly are not the same as those of 60 years ago.
You can go back in history and find much worse examples from our history that would not exactly paint the country in a good light. People have very short memories, and or, are too young to remember and or have not really studied the history so well. Yes, we have some serious issues to deal with, and yes, people are too apathetic, but change is slow. "60 years ago" black and white people couldn't drink from the same water fountain, etc. Keep it in perspective. The system also has some self correcting abilities, which do work slowly. Some times, they happen quickly, and that can be an ugly event indeed. If you were to simply outline a bunch of things that were going on in a window of time in this country, and then ask people to guess where they were, it would look even worse through such a myopic view.
Deogol
11-12-2010, 09:13 PM
You can go back in history and find much worse examples from our history that would not exactly paint the country in a good light. People have very short memories, and or, are too young to remember and or have not really studied the history so well. Yes, we have some serious issues to deal with, and yes, people are too apathetic, but change is slow. "60 years ago" black and white people couldn't drink from the same water fountain, etc. Keep it in perspective. The system also has some self correcting abilities, which do work slowly. Some times, they happen quickly, and that can be an ugly event indeed. If you were to simply outline a bunch of things that were going on in a window of time in this country, and then ask people to guess where they were, it would look even worse through such a myopic view.
Selma riots, freedom riders, marches, democratic convention riot, weathermen, draft dodging, and dare I say it, the willingness of one/some to assassinate a president - that is what brought about some changes.
Not sitting on their asses writing screeds out on the internet with "sign this internet petition!" no government worker will ever see.
Whiskey rebellion, shay's rebellion, battle of blair mountain, and the bonus army...
And of course the ever loving motherfucker doozy where civils on both sides lined up to change government - the civil war.
Thats the shit that got some change going on.
jimboe7373
11-12-2010, 11:02 PM
Selma riots, freedom riders, marches, democratic convention riot, weathermen, draft dodging, and dare I say it, the willingness of one/some to assassinate a president - that is what brought about some changes.
Not sitting on their asses writing screeds out on the internet with "sign this internet petition!" no government worker will ever see.
Whiskey rebellion, shay's rebellion, battle of blair mountain, and the bonus army...
And of course the ever loving motherfucker doozy where civils on both sides lined up to change government - the civil war.
Thats the shit that got some change going on. Maybe the reason we don't have the rioting etc. now is because of all the past stuff that you posted that has evolved us as a nation. People will usually riot where they feel there is no recourse and that they have no say. Most people in this country have a fair amount of equal rights now and as evidenced by the 2008 and 2010 elections people who are dissatisfied can get new people in by voting.
I don't think we need rioting, rebellion or assinations at all. I think we just need to rise up as a people and put the national media and special interests on notice that we are not going to let them manipulate us into senseless bickering while they split the spoils. Hold the politicians feet to the fire and let them know anyone supporting these divisive counter productive policies is going to have a hard time getting elected. This deficit commission did a pretty good job of assessing the problems we're in, what we need to do now is all admit we have a problem and then agree to take our medicine. Rational dialog and realistic action, everyone has to give a little across the board- Dem's agree to spending and program cuts, Rep's agree to tax increases, special interest/big business agree to restrictions and cutting of special priveledges etc. Forget about blame, name-calling, insults, political squabbles, earmarks etc. It's crunch time and like it or not, where all in it together. Everyone bleeds a bit in as close to equal measure as possible and anyone who tries to avoid putting in their fair share or taking advantage- hang them from the highest tree (figuratively)
Deogol
11-13-2010, 12:16 AM
Maybe the reason we don't have the rioting etc. now is because of all the past stuff that you posted that has evolved us as a nation. People will usually riot where they feel there is no recourse and that they have no say. Most people in this country have a fair amount of equal rights now and as evidenced by the 2008 and 2010 elections people who are dissatisfied can get new people in by voting.
I don't think we need rioting, rebellion or assinations at all. I think we just need to rise up as a people and put the national media and special interests on notice that we are not going to let them manipulate us into senseless bickering while they split the spoils. Hold the politicians feet to the fire and let them know anyone supporting these divisive counter productive policies is going to have a hard time getting elected. This deficit commission did a pretty good job of assessing the problems we're in, what we need to do now is all admit we have a problem and then agree to take our medicine. Rational dialog and realistic action, everyone has to give a little across the board- Dem's agree to spending and program cuts, Rep's agree to tax increases, special interest/big business agree to restrictions and cutting of special priveledges etc. Forget about blame, name-calling, insults, political squabbles, earmarks etc. It's crunch time and like it or not, where all in it together. Everyone bleeds a bit in as close to equal measure as possible and anyone who tries to avoid putting in their fair share or taking advantage- hang them from the highest tree (figuratively)
The tactics to achieve this?
(I'll say I am hoping the Tea Party types will shake the tree a bit - both democrats and republicans!)
jimboe7373
11-13-2010, 08:40 AM
The tactics to achieve this?
(I'll say I am hoping the Tea Party types will shake the tree a bit - both democrats and republicans!) I would find it highly unlikely if the Tea Party will provide any kind of answer on this. The "people" need to be on the same page and as a unified force tell big business, special interests and the politicians that the jig is up- no more divide and conquer. Nobody has to change their party or their view- Rep's can still fight for less gov't and taxes etc. and Dem's for their programs etc. They just each agree in the short term to give somethings up and sacrifice as long as the other side is doing the same in close to equal measure- and the make it very uncomfortable for any media company, special interest group or polititician who goes against the grain of solution oriented cooperation and reasonable shared sacrifice.
The Tea Party will be ineffective in this because they pride themselves on being inflexible, no one party or group is going to be able to force it's will 100% on anyone else and get anything done, as long as that's happenning it will be endless gridlock. As mentioned, until the majority of us put being American ahead of being Rep, Dem, Liberal, Conservative, Tea Party etc., we will just founder and needlessly bicker while big business and special interests suck money out of our pockets.
The tactics to achieve this are unfortunately something more difficult than rioting, mass protest and war- it will take people being reasonable, giving up their need to be right, giving up their sense of moral superiority and letting go of petty bickering and listening to divisive media programs that demonize and de-humanize their political opponents and form a wall between us. Give up some of your stuff while the other side gives up some of theirs- no blaming Bush, no bad-mouthing Obama. Realistically assess our problems, rationally address the sacrifices, spread them out as fairly as possible and take our medicine like mature adults. The unified front will produce very quick results domestically and will help our agenda world wide.
The Tea Party is about to get smacked right in the face by grade school level math. You can't cut taxes and lower the deficit without major cuts to defense, medicare and medicaid.
jester214
11-13-2010, 03:48 PM
The Tea Party is about to get smacked right in the face by grade school level math. You can't cut taxes and lower the deficit without major cuts to defense, medicare and medicaid.
Kinda like every other polititican and political party in the country? The Democrats ignored grade school math and grade school logic when they "balanced the budget" under Clinton.
Obama promised that the HC bill will lower healthcare costs and decrease the deficit all at the same time!
All the math these people use is based on dreams... Republicans say they will decrease spending, which never happens. Democrats say they'll "tax the wealthy" to pay for their programs. Not only do they not do it, but even if they did, the wealthy know how to avoid paying more taxes.
Both parties live in a Dreamworld.