REAL WORLD EVENT DISCUSSIONS

Republican Party out of step with the country's fiscal priorities.

POSTED BY: NIKI2
UPDATED: Wednesday, August 3, 2011 13:36
SHORT URL:
VIEWED: 1384
PAGE 1 of 1

Wednesday, July 27, 2011 12:03 PM

NIKI2

Gettin' old, but still a hippie at heart...


Quote:

News reporting is fixated on the D.C. beltway scheming, beaming pictures of government officials zipping in and out of meetings with occasional public comment. Meanwhile, the public is already reaching a verdict, and it is a harsh one -- the Republican Party is out of step with the country's fiscal priorities.

As its handling of the debt limit debate tarnishes the GOP's national brand name, President Barack Obama may inadvertently be limiting the damage to the opposing party.

The GOP's insistence on reducing U.S. debt solely by making cuts to government programs is unpopular and increasingly so -- less than a fifth of Americans favor this approach as opposed to 56% who favor a combination of spending cuts and tax hikes (that's a 10 percentage point jump as the debt ceiling debate has played out since early June). [Polls found at http://www.pollingreport.com/budget.htm -- you should check them out, they're very telling!]

Judging from the reticence of GOP frontrunner Mitt Romney to jump into the center of the fray, it's not lost on Republican strategists that a lopsided 65% of independents favor the combination spending/tax approach.

At a time when Obama's standing might be expected to be sagging as economic doldrums persist, Republicans have handed him a boost. Over the past several months, Obama received more credit for behaving responsibly on the budget, rising from 46% to 52%, while the GOP's already poor standing for fiscal irresponsibility inched up from 60% to 63%.

Just over a half of the country is ready to blame the GOP for failing to raise the debt ceiling as compared with 30% who would blame Obama.

One of the most politically damaging aspects of the debt ceiling debate for Republicans is that their fiscal priorities are at odds with super-majorities of Americans. About three-quarters favor raising taxes on the rich and clawing back tax advantages for oil and gas companies and the private jets owned by businesses. Meanwhile, the GOP's open campaign to substantially scale back spending on Social Security and Medicare and restructure those programs is opposed by more than 8 out of 10 Americans.

One consequence is that Americans have lost trust in the GOP's ability to handle one of the government's most popular programs, Medicare.

While trust in Obama and congressional Republicans was at parity in May, the GOP is now lagging far behind -- only 37% believe it will do a better job handling Medicare compared with 50% who look to the president. This may be a leading indicator of how seniors and their supporters will vote next year.

It should come as no surprise that the Republican Party's general standing has taken a hit. For sure, neither party is popular -- the Democratic and Republican parties started out the spring with Americans split in whether they favor each or not. But the ferocious debt ceiling debate is now cratering the GOP's standing -- 55% now express unfavorable views (as compared to 48% in March) -- while the public remains split over the Democratic Party.

But as the GOP prepares to fall on its sword, Obama has inadvertently fueled the generalized disgust with government that propelled Republicans to striking midterm election wins in 2010 and continues to generate support for aspects of its agenda. The nearly 80% of Americans who are dissatisfied with the country's direction and believe that it is heading on the wrong track are the highest historical levels under Obama.

The president's flagging of Washington's "dysfunction" reinforces the distrust of government that many Americans harbor, oddly making it harder for him to rally support behind government programs such as Medicare and Social Security. This may help to explain why the GOP is losing the debt ceiling debate and yet three-quarters of Americans favor a constitutional amendment to balance the budget.

The lessons moving forward are clear. Republican leaders intent on winning the White House and strengthening their position in Congress need to steer their party back to the views of mainstream America or squander what may be setting up as a propitious opportunity in 2012 to run against the "in" party in a time of deep discontent.

As for Democrats, they need to focus like a laser beam on the concrete programs that many Americans rely upon and steer away from the sweeping conclusions about government waste and dysfunction that undergird a genuine philosophical conservatism in America. http://www.cnn.com/2011/OPINION/07/27/jacobs.americans.verdict/index.h
tml?hpt=hp_t1

One poll means nothing; numerous polls and percentages growing over time mean something, IMO.

NOTIFY: Y   |  REPLY  |  REPLY WITH QUOTE  |  TOP  |  HOME  

Wednesday, July 27, 2011 12:25 PM

AURAPTOR

America loves a winner!




It's the Dems who are oblivious to the train wreck they're causing.



NOTIFY: N   |  REPLY  |  REPLY WITH QUOTE  |  TOP  |  HOME  

Wednesday, July 27, 2011 1:52 PM

FREMDFIRMA



More like out of step with reality, you ask me.

No economic plan calling for more war should be allowed even discussion, and I think that's where the american people should draw the line...

Although when they did last time, the politicians just ignored them, so when it happens THIS time...

And. Then. What ?

-Frem

I do not serve the Blind God.

NOTIFY: N   |  REPLY  |  REPLY WITH QUOTE  |  TOP  |  HOME  

Wednesday, July 27, 2011 4:49 PM

GEEZER

Keep the Shiny side up


Quote:

Originally posted by Fremdfirma:

No economic plan calling for more war should be allowed even discussion, and I think that's where the american people should draw the line...



How about going to yet another war (Libya) without an economic plan for it at all?

Have you forgotten the Democrats and Republicans are pretty much all the same?

"Keep the Shiny side up"

NOTIFY: Y   |  REPLY  |  REPLY WITH QUOTE  |  TOP  |  HOME  

Wednesday, July 27, 2011 4:55 PM

KANEMAN


Quote:

Originally posted by AURaptor:


It's the Dems who are oblivious to the train wreck they're causing.






To be fair..BOTH "parties" have caused this mess....Neocons=liberals...both big government...one wants to give our money to the military industrial complex...the other wants to give it to the unwashed...both want to give it to wall street ...well, it's true. I have laughed for years at this mess...go back and look since 2007...Ron Paul.

NOTIFY: N   |  REPLY  |  REPLY WITH QUOTE  |  TOP  |  HOME  

Wednesday, July 27, 2011 6:02 PM

KWICKO

"We'll know our disinformation program is complete when everything the American public believes is false." -- William Casey, Reagan's presidential campaign manager & CIA Director (from first staff meeting in 1981)


Quote:

Originally posted by Geezer:
Quote:

Originally posted by Fremdfirma:

No economic plan calling for more war should be allowed even discussion, and I think that's where the american people should draw the line...



How about going to yet another war (Libya) without an economic plan for it at all?



So-called "conservatives" should cheer that. They did exactly that for the last two wars. Maybe they'd be happier if Obama put 150,000 or so troops on the ground in Libya...

Quote:


Have you forgotten the Democrats and Republicans are pretty much all the same?



So you planning on voting for as many Democrats as Republicans next time 'round? After all, if they're all the same...

"Although it is not true that all conservatives are stupid people, it is true that most stupid people are conservatives." - John Stuart Mill

NOTIFY: Y   |  REPLY  |  REPLY WITH QUOTE  |  TOP  |  HOME  

Thursday, July 28, 2011 1:33 AM

SIGNYM

I believe in solving problems, not sharing them.


We have the option of voting for Tea-baggers who are a bunch of tantrum-throwing reality-in-denial morons (just look at Rappy) and the business-as-usual Republicrats who got us into this mess. If you tossed out the Tea-baggers and the Wall-Street Republicrats you'd be left with about 20 honest Senators and 20 honest Representatives- mostly Democrats but at least one Republican (Ron Paul) and one Independent.

Looking at both party tickets there are few real alternatives to either option. And given Americans' phenomenal ability to avoid hard decisions, the obstacle of "no obvious choices" leaves us bent over for a good reaming. Hopefully, people will wake up enough to do something effective in their own interests (besides bitching and whining to a pollster) but not so panicked or angry that they stampede into another reality-deficient movement.

http://www.politics1.com/p2012.htm

NOTIFY: Y   |  REPLY  |  REPLY WITH QUOTE  |  TOP  |  HOME  

Thursday, July 28, 2011 1:58 AM

GEEZER

Keep the Shiny side up


Quote:

Originally posted by Kwicko:
So you planning on voting for as many Democrats as Republicans next time 'round? After all, if they're all the same...



Not at all. If I find someone I can support, I'll vote for them - Democrat, Republican, third-party, whatever. Otherwise I'll write in "None of the above" rather than settle for the "lesser of two evils".



"Keep the Shiny side up"

NOTIFY: Y   |  REPLY  |  REPLY WITH QUOTE  |  TOP  |  HOME  

Thursday, July 28, 2011 3:59 AM

NEWOLDBROWNCOAT


Quote:

Originally posted by SignyM:

but not so panicked or angry that they stampede into another reality-deficient movement.





Hey, panicky angry stampeding is what we do BEST!
Followed by reality deficiency and partisan tunnel vision.

Which means we are doomed. ( Oh...)

NOTIFY: Y   |  REPLY  |  REPLY WITH QUOTE  |  TOP  |  HOME  

Thursday, July 28, 2011 4:33 AM

BYTEMITE


Quote:

And given Americans' phenomenal ability to avoid hard decisions, the obstacle of "no obvious choices" leaves us bent over for a good reaming.


I believe the point I have made before is that Americans, that is, the public in general, does not CHOOSE their political candidates. We haven't since the invention of the electoral college at the founding of the country, and it got worse after the fighting between John Adams and Thomas Jefferson split the body politic into two parties.

Blaming the public for their "choice" in candidates is not particularly fair. Blaming rich bastards potentially is, as is blaming the parties themselves. If there is annoyance to be had with the public, it's that a significant number falls prey to what amounts to little more than a shell game.

NOTIFY: Y   |  REPLY  |  REPLY WITH QUOTE  |  TOP  |  HOME  

Thursday, July 28, 2011 1:03 PM

KWICKO

"We'll know our disinformation program is complete when everything the American public believes is false." -- William Casey, Reagan's presidential campaign manager & CIA Director (from first staff meeting in 1981)


Quote:

Originally posted by Geezer:
Quote:

Originally posted by Kwicko:
So you planning on voting for as many Democrats as Republicans next time 'round? After all, if they're all the same...



Not at all. If I find someone I can support, I'll vote for them - Democrat, Republican, third-party, whatever. Otherwise I'll write in "None of the above" rather than settle for the "lesser of two evils".



That actually sounds pretty reasonable. Good on ya!

NOTIFY: Y   |  REPLY  |  REPLY WITH QUOTE  |  TOP  |  HOME  

Thursday, July 28, 2011 4:21 PM

DREAMTROVE




I find myself in complete agreement with geezer.


That's what a ship is, you know - it's not just a keel and a hull and a deck and sails, that's what a ship needs.

NOTIFY: Y   |  REPLY  |  REPLY WITH QUOTE  |  TOP  |  HOME  

Thursday, July 28, 2011 4:36 PM

KWICKO

"We'll know our disinformation program is complete when everything the American public believes is false." -- William Casey, Reagan's presidential campaign manager & CIA Director (from first staff meeting in 1981)


Y'know, I recently voted for a city council candidate who was dead-set AGAINST the new Formula 1 track that's being built here. That wasn't an easy vote for me, because I'm an F1 freak and a motorsports enthusiast. But the things the city was doing - they'd promised the FIA, the F1 sanctioning body, a $25,000,000 *PER YEAR* kickback, despite the fact that nothing of the sort was ever agreed to or voted on.

Kathy Tovo came out firmly against that arrangement, and I agree with her.

F1 coming to Austin isn't going to bring extra business to my door. If you run a business that WILL get extra money from them being here, then by all means, pour YOUR money into a slush fund for F1. Don't take MY money to do it, though.

The measure was defeated, by the way. But then the state stepped in and said they'd give them the money anyway. :(

And as much as I like F1, I likely won't be able to go to the race here. Ticket prices are running around $1300 for a weekend pass, and I just can't justify that. Plus, they're complete idiots for scheduling a race in South Texas in June. Expect deaths.

"Although it is not true that all conservatives are stupid people, it is true that most stupid people are conservatives." - John Stuart Mill

NOTIFY: Y   |  REPLY  |  REPLY WITH QUOTE  |  TOP  |  HOME  

Friday, July 29, 2011 2:14 AM

KWICKO

"We'll know our disinformation program is complete when everything the American public believes is false." -- William Casey, Reagan's presidential campaign manager & CIA Director (from first staff meeting in 1981)


Meanwhile, ponder this: John Boehner is getting his ass kicked by Harry-freaking-REID!

Reid needs to bring forward his own plan on the debt ceiling and spending cuts. Bring it to the Senate floor for a vote. Screw the traditions - Boehner and the House have already shown that they don't have the ability to bring a bill that will even pass muster with his own party, much less get through the full House. So let 'em send over a blue paper admonishing the Senate for breaking protocol; taking the initiative will show the world that Boehner is unfit for his job, and the GOP if unfit to run the House.

"Although it is not true that all conservatives are stupid people, it is true that most stupid people are conservatives." - John Stuart Mill

NOTIFY: Y   |  REPLY  |  REPLY WITH QUOTE  |  TOP  |  HOME  

Friday, July 29, 2011 6:46 AM

NIKI2

Gettin' old, but still a hippie at heart...


I agree, Mike, except that I don't like REID's plan either. At this point all I'm hoping for is that Obama ends up raising the ceiling himself. Let them try to impeach him--they've said they'll impeach him whether he raises it himself OR let's it go to default, so there's nothing to lose and they'd lose any impeachment proceedings anyway.

Once it's raised, THEN they can get back to bickering like children. The longer the Tea Partiers insist on "no revenue", the worse the American people's opinion of them will be. As it should. It will be the same idiocy over the budget as it was over the Bush tax cuts and the debt ceiling. They'll keep being the "Party of No" until they're voted out, which, if they keep up like this, will be no problem at all.

As I see it, the Republicans will end up crying in their beer. Boehner can't control his party, and he (and those who've been around long enough) KNOW this is the most fantastic deal they've ever gotten or COULD get, yet it will be passed up by the neophite Tea Partiers whose mentality is "Give me what I want or I'll blow the place up". He's gotta be going to bed weeping even now. My only prayer is Obama and/or the Dems (but most likely Obama) don't cave and GIVE them the ridiculous "cut only" deal Reid is offering. Sickens me.

The Tea Party won over the Bush tax cuts by holding important things hostage. I think it (and all the gains made by the state legislators/governors who rode in on the 2010 "election of fear") has made them think they can get away with anything. The American people are against them by a wide margin already; I'm pretty sure whatEVER comes out of this and the upcoming battles (since they'll never change their tactics) will guarantee they get thrown out next election; then maybe we can get back to work on ACTUALLY getting the deficit down by reasonable terms. Everything comes home to roost when the electorate gets its say, and tho' it will be hell in the meantime, I hope they keep on going the way they are, so we can get them OUT!
Quote:

We have the option of voting for Tea-baggers who are a bunch of tantrum-throwing reality-in-denial morons (just look at Rappy) and the business-as-usual Republicrats who got us into this mess. If you tossed out the Tea-baggers and the Wall-Street Republicrats you'd be left with about 20 honest Senators and 20 honest Representatives- mostly Democrats but at least one Republican (Ron Paul) and one Independent.

Looking at both party tickets there are few real alternatives to either option. And given Americans' phenomenal ability to avoid hard decisions, the obstacle of "no obvious choices" leaves us bent over for a good reaming. Hopefully, people will wake up enough to do something effective in their own interests (besides bitching and whining to a pollster) but not so panicked or angry that they stampede into another reality-deficient movement.

Sig, you said it all.

And yes, the Dems need to put something on paper; the argument that "we're the only ones who've put anything out" is convenient right now, so a REAL compromise should be put out there, ON PAPER (or whatever), so they can vote THAT down and the people will have a really clear picture of what's going on.


Hippie Operative Nikovich Nikita Nicovna Talibani,
Contracted Agent of Veritas Oilspillus, code name “Nike”,
signing off



NOTIFY: Y   |  REPLY  |  REPLY WITH QUOTE  |  TOP  |  HOME  

Friday, July 29, 2011 11:31 PM

SIGNYM

I believe in solving problems, not sharing them.


BYTE: If you look carefully at each ballot, there are usually more than two names on it. So every election, there are usually some really good candidates on the ticket. The problem is that most of these candidates don't have enough money to run advertising on our corporatist media, so the choices are there, they are just UNOBVIOUS.



NOTIFY: Y   |  REPLY  |  REPLY WITH QUOTE  |  TOP  |  HOME  

Saturday, July 30, 2011 6:18 AM

BYTEMITE


And those are never split elections from the major parties, none of the alternative candidates ever have party affiliations, the ones that don't didn't buy their way in, and the public has every bit of choice whether alternative candidates appear on the ballot.

NOTIFY: Y   |  REPLY  |  REPLY WITH QUOTE  |  TOP  |  HOME  

Saturday, July 30, 2011 8:45 AM

NIKI2

Gettin' old, but still a hippie at heart...


Update:
Quote:

The Republican-controlled House of Representatives is set to reject Senate Majority Leader Harry Reid's plan to raise the nation's debt ceiling Saturday -- partisan payback for the Democratic-controlled Senate's rejection of Speaker John Boehner's plan Friday night.

The twin votes are a likely prelude to a long weekend of furious back-room negotiations between congressional leaders looking for a way to end a tense political standoff and avoid a potentially catastrophic federal default next week.

The Senate voted 59-41 to table Boehner's measure -- effectively killing it -- almost immediately after the plan was approved by the House in a sharply polarized 218-210 vote. No Democrats supported the measure; 22 of the House's 240 Republicans also opposed it.
.....
Any proposal put forward by Reid will ultimately need the support of at least seven Senate Republicans in order to reach the 60-vote margin required to overcome a certain GOP filibuster. [Back to The Party of No filibustering...gawd forbid we should have a straight up-and-down vote on ANYTHING, ever!]
.....
[pertinent points on each plan:]
Boehner's plan, which has since been revised, proposed generating a total of $917 billion in savings while initially raising the debt ceiling by $900 billion. His plan, however, would require a second vote by Congress to raise the debt ceiling by a combined $2.5 trillion -- enough to last through the end of 2012. It would create a special congressional committee to recommend additional savings of $1.6 trillion or more.

Any failure on the part of Congress to enact mandated spending reductions or abide by new spending caps would trigger automatic across-the-board budget cuts.

The plan, as amended Friday, also calls for congressional passage of a balanced budget amendment before the second vote to raise the debt ceiling, which would likely be required at some point during the winter.
.....
As for Reid's plan, a revised version he proposed Friday would reduce deficits over the next decade by $2.4 trillion and raise the debt ceiling by a similar amount. It also includes $1 trillion in savings based on the planned U.S. withdrawals from military engagements in Afghanistan and Iraq.

Reid's plan also would establish a congressional committee made up of 12 House and Senate members to consider additional options for debt reduction. The committee's proposals would be guaranteed by a Senate vote with no amendments by the end of the year.

In addition, it incorporates a process based on a proposal by McConnell that would give Obama the authority to raise the debt ceiling in two steps while providing Congress the opportunity to vote its disapproval.

Among other things, Reid has stressed that his plan meets the key GOP demand for no additional taxes. Boehner, however, argued this week that Reid's plan fails to tackle popular entitlement programs such as Medicare, which are among the biggest drivers of the debt.

[So what does the American public think?]A recent CNN/ORC International Poll reveals a growing public exasperation and demand for compromise. Sixty-four percent of respondents to a July 18-20 survey preferred a deal with a mix of spending cuts and tax increases. Only 34% preferred a debt reduction plan based solely on spending reductions.

According to the poll, the public is sharply divided along partisan lines; Democrats and independents are open to a number of different approaches because they think a failure to raise the debt ceiling would cause a major crisis for the country. Republicans, however, draw the line at tax increases, and a narrow majority of them oppose raising the debt ceiling under any circumstances. (More at http://www.cnn.com/2011/POLITICS/07/30/debt.talks/index.html )





Hippie Operative Nikovich Nikita Nicovna Talibani,
Contracted Agent of Veritas Oilspillus, code name “Nike”,
signing off



NOTIFY: Y   |  REPLY  |  REPLY WITH QUOTE  |  TOP  |  HOME  

Saturday, July 30, 2011 5:31 PM

1KIKI

Goodbye, kind world (George Monbiot) - In common with all those generations which have contemplated catastrophe, we appear to be incapable of understanding what confronts us.


"And those are never split elections from the major parties, none of the alternative candidates ever have party affiliations, the ones that don't didn't buy their way in, and the public has every bit of choice whether alternative candidates appear on the ballot."

I have to say, I have zero idea what you mean.

"And those are never split elections from the major parties ..." Uhm .... no clue.

"... none of the alternative candidates ever have party affiliations ..." Green Party? Peace and Freedom Party? Common Sense Party, Communist Party USA, Democratic Socialists Party, Independents Party ......? Once again, I am completely baffled by your post.

"... the ones that don't didn't buy their way in ..." Hunh?

"... and the public has every bit of choice whether alternative candidates appear on the ballot ..." Get enough signatures and you're on. They DO have every bit of choice, but no one AFAIK can keep you off, unless you are trying to run under a party which doesn't recognize you.



So, uhm, what did you mean?

NOTIFY: N   |  REPLY  |  REPLY WITH QUOTE  |  TOP  |  HOME  

Saturday, July 30, 2011 6:26 PM

BYTEMITE


Ballot candidate petitions have to be APPROVED, 1kiki. They can be rejected, even if there are enough signatures. No choice really exists when candidates are all cherry picked. And if a candidate that TPTB doesn't like somehow DID get on the ballot, and won one of the very much fraud ridden and rigged elections, TPTB can and HAS refused to allow them to be seated.

Sig said there are often more than two candidates on a ballot. She's right, but those candidates aren't put on the ballot by the public, and she's arguing that the array of dishonest politicians we see on the ballots are the public's fault.

My point was that no matter what party they're in, even if they're in a third party, they've probably had to leave their principles at the door the moment they start trying to run for office. And the ones who BUY their way in I consider rather self-explanatory. This is a simple matter of how campaigns are financed, and even if the campaigns aren't mostly funded by lobbyists, which is rare, candidates are unlikely to remain uncorrupted once they get into office.

Honesty doesn't lend itself much to politics. But greed certainly does. As does lying about what you're really going to do once you get into office, while making token efforts of appeasing your constituents on the side.

NOTIFY: Y   |  REPLY  |  REPLY WITH QUOTE  |  TOP  |  HOME  

Saturday, July 30, 2011 7:08 PM

SIGNYM

I believe in solving problems, not sharing them.


I guess it must be different in California. There are some pretty out-there candidates. Maybe you should move here, Byte!

NOTIFY: Y   |  REPLY  |  REPLY WITH QUOTE  |  TOP  |  HOME  

Saturday, July 30, 2011 7:11 PM

BYTEMITE


...Maybe. Having lived in Utah my adult aware-of-politics life, I'm most familiar with Utah politics.

Which are exceedingly corrupt...

NOTIFY: Y   |  REPLY  |  REPLY WITH QUOTE  |  TOP  |  HOME  

Sunday, July 31, 2011 3:07 AM

KWICKO

"We'll know our disinformation program is complete when everything the American public believes is false." -- William Casey, Reagan's presidential campaign manager & CIA Director (from first staff meeting in 1981)




Interesting...


ETA: My issue with this graphic is that it's not accurate. The debt levels I looked at show show where the debt is on the last day of the last budget enacted by each President. Additionally, I don't look at the debt that exists on their inauguration, but rather I count their "start" as September 30 of the year in which they were inaugurated. So Reagan's budgets run 9/30/81 - 9/30/89, Bush I's 9/30/89 - 9/30/93, etc.

My number come from here:

http://www.treasurydirect.gov/govt/reports/pd/histdebt/histdebt.htm

When you look at those numbers, you find that when they left office they left us debts this much larger than they inherited:


Reagan: + 286%


HW Bush: + 154%


Clinton: + 131%


W Bush: + 205%


Obama: + 120%


So please, let's stop with this idiotic myth that Obama is the spendiest President in history. He's not even the spendiest of the last 30 years!




NOTIFY: Y   |  REPLY  |  REPLY WITH QUOTE  |  TOP  |  HOME  

Sunday, July 31, 2011 9:18 AM

1KIKI

Goodbye, kind world (George Monbiot) - In common with all those generations which have contemplated catastrophe, we appear to be incapable of understanding what confronts us.


Nice post Kwicko.

Byte: "... no matter what party they're in, even if they're in a third party, they've probably had to leave their principles at the door ..."

A Russ Feingold, or Henry Waxman, or Dennis Kucinich should NEVER exist in your alternate world, then. They should never have run. They should never have been elected. They should never have been seated. But they do exist. Even if you don't find then locally, or in your state, they exist nationally and deserve to be supported. If you can't vote for them, you can support them.

As for facing a slate you can actually cast a ballot for, where you have to hold your nose just to read the names ... whatever makes you think not voting will make things better? It's already been done, and what is the result? And you continue to hold that as a solution? WHY?

And now you have an example where people have done something different ... Do you not see how a small regressive group of nut cases called TP is gaining power by draining support from slightly less nutty republicans? That is the power of the third party, at the very least. And they did NOT get their power by staying home and pouting and sulking. They got people to VOTE for them.

YOUR VOTE IS IMPORTANT. No vote means "do what you want, I don't care". A vote for somebody else means "ignore me at your peril".

NOTIFY: N   |  REPLY  |  REPLY WITH QUOTE  |  TOP  |  HOME  

Wednesday, August 3, 2011 1:19 PM

RIONAEIRE

Beir bua agus beannacht


I'm fine with raising taxes on people above a certain income bracket.

Quicko, I think the reason that a lot of conservatives aren't for a war with Libya is because they decided to get into the other wars eight to ten years ago and things have changed a bit, plus if we're in two wars as it is no one wants to get involved in a third, I've imposed a two country limit, any more than that is too much, although I think two countries at a time is too much too. I still believe that there are troops on the ground in Libya, even if they say there aren't.

"A completely coherant River means writers don't deliver" KatTaya

NOTIFY: N   |  REPLY  |  REPLY WITH QUOTE  |  TOP  |  HOME  

Wednesday, August 3, 2011 1:36 PM

BYTEMITE


Quote:

A Russ Feingold, or Henry Waxman, or Dennis Kucinich should NEVER exist in your alternate world, then.


No, it's more that they simply don't matter. Anyone who turns out to not be corruptable is unable to gain the support they need among the other cutthroat politicians and lobbyists. They are pushed aside, and the equally corrupt media turns them into laughingstocks. No one pays any attention to them, and they accomplish nothing.

Quote:

YOUR VOTE IS IMPORTANT. No vote means "do what you want, I don't care". A vote for somebody else means "ignore me at your peril".


I'd rather watch the whole system deconstruct via no support whatsoever, through no voting and the public increasingly ignoring the pitiful demands for attention, the pointless call to war. If I vote, that defeats my intentions. It means they've tricked me again into thinking that I have any say in ANYTHING, or that someone I support can magically make things better.

They can't. And things are only going to get a WHOLE damn lot worse.

NOTIFY: Y   |  REPLY  |  REPLY WITH QUOTE  |  TOP  |  HOME  

YOUR OPTIONS

NEW POSTS TODAY

USERPOST DATE

OTHER TOPICS

DISCUSSIONS
Suspect arrested after attack on Paul Pelosi, American businessman, married to Nancy Pelosi Speaker of the United States House of Representatives
Wed, November 6, 2024 20:22 - 62 posts
Where are the Libertarians?
Wed, November 6, 2024 20:16 - 91 posts
Multiculturalism
Wed, November 6, 2024 20:07 - 54 posts
For the record.
Wed, November 6, 2024 20:00 - 224 posts
India
Wed, November 6, 2024 19:52 - 140 posts
Ukraine updates
Wed, November 6, 2024 19:49 - 26 posts
That didn't take long...
Wed, November 6, 2024 19:47 - 35 posts
Syria and Ukraine, Catalan and Kurdistan: what do they have in common?
Wed, November 6, 2024 19:41 - 102 posts
The predictions thread
Wed, November 6, 2024 19:12 - 1186 posts
Kamala Harris for President
Wed, November 6, 2024 18:52 - 642 posts
A thread for Democrats Only
Wed, November 6, 2024 18:28 - 6922 posts
Biden’s 87,000 IRS Agents Set to Become Woke Army of “Equity” Enforcers
Wed, November 6, 2024 18:27 - 18 posts

FFF.NET SOCIAL