|
Post by james on Nov 6, 2012 3:11:42 GMT -8
When it comes to supporting the huge rich corrupt companies and corrupt banks there is not much between tweedle dee and tweedle dum. I wish yous had more parties that would really take on these scum bags,but they would never stand a chance,thats why your elections will never work. Only thing that would make me vote is any if party that has high ranking members who think pregnancy through rape is a gift from god,or want more crazy stuff from these religious bigots.
|
|
Ross
Teen Chick
Posts: 699
|
Post by Ross on Nov 6, 2012 5:23:42 GMT -8
anyone on here not voting for the big 2?
|
|
|
Post by Bingo on Nov 6, 2012 5:59:25 GMT -8
I notice Elizabeth Cook has on her Twitter account this morning "Shut up and vote"
|
|
|
Post by drizzletown on Nov 6, 2012 6:15:37 GMT -8
anyone on here not voting for the big 2? Nope.
|
|
|
Post by drizzletown on Nov 6, 2012 6:17:28 GMT -8
Parts of the NE still w/o power. I wonder how this is going to work.
"I hope..........."
|
|
|
Post by erik on Nov 6, 2012 7:56:26 GMT -8
This could be tricky for those precincts that still lack power, but I think Andrew Cuomo, the governor of New York, allowed for residents to go to the nearest operating polling stations and vote in case the one in their precinct wasn't functioning.
|
|
|
Post by Bingo on Nov 6, 2012 8:20:23 GMT -8
|
|
|
Post by Bingo on Nov 6, 2012 9:00:03 GMT -8
|
|
|
Post by slovog on Nov 6, 2012 9:00:25 GMT -8
Nope. Voting outside of the big 2 is a divide and conquer proposition ala Ross Perot getting Clinton elected in 92. There's divisiveness in both parties which is what makes the middle so powerful every election year.
It chaps my ass that everything is reduced to a definition of rape or marriage. Let God sort that out. I want a strong economy, a strong military to defend our borders and our national interests and strong leadership. I could give a rats ass who's bumping nasties with who and when someone decides which group of cellular matter is human when my 401k has gone down the crapper and I'll likely have to support my kids until they're 40 or I'm dead. Whichever comes first.
|
|
|
Post by slovog on Nov 6, 2012 9:07:22 GMT -8
An ice storm knocked the power out in the deep South for 2 months in some places back in the early 90's and hardly anyone noticed. Fired up our chain saws and cleared the roads, fired up our gas grills and kept the neighborhood fed, put a couple extra quilts on the bed and a couple of extra dogs. After the flood in 2010, middle Tennesseans did all the heavy lifting and had things in good shape before FEMA came in here and started screwing people.
We have become a pitiful excuse of self sufficiency in too many areas of the country in the last century. I can see a time where everything will be subsidized for those that don't have the wherewithal to help themselves because they are too stupid or too lazy. A sad, sad commentary.
|
|
|
Post by james on Nov 6, 2012 11:03:40 GMT -8
Nope. Voting outside of the big 2 is a divide and conquer proposition ala Ross Perot getting Clinton elected in 92. There's divisiveness in both parties which is what makes the middle so powerful every election year. It chaps my ass that everything is reduced to a definition of rape or marriage. Let God sort that out. I want a strong economy, a strong military to defend our borders and our national interests and strong leadership. I could give a rats ass who's bumping nasties with who and when someone decides which group of cellular matter is human when my 401k has gone down the crapper and I'll likely have to support my kids until they're 40 or I'm dead. Whichever comes first. You are right,2nd time Bush got in was against gay marriage,gay rights,not the fact your country was enemy number 1. I dont think yous need a stronger military as you are already,pull back from protecting scum dictators,pull back your bases,invest the money,not in banks or tax cuts for the rich,which the big two do,but in the country and its people. Its frighting people are voting for the wrong reasons,no matter what party,voting on gays,against science and not for a decent health care is just nuts,especially when you put so called intelligent design,your hatred of others,instead of putting your own and fellow human beings first,true christains helping the homeless,the poor,the needy,the sick.
|
|
|
Post by slovog on Nov 6, 2012 15:32:07 GMT -8
I think everyone is willing to help those that are willing to help themselves or someone who is hard on their luck. Subsidizing every fiber of your being such that you can't possibly make it without government intervention is the problem.
This is my Libertarian side I guess:
1. Legalize the drugs, take the profit out of them and let the chips fall where they may. The problem will solve itself sooner or later. 2. Lock up the borders and remove the anchor designations for children born just over the border for citizenship. Take the damn test or take your ass back home! We are all immigrants mostly. Do it the right way or go away. 3. Make big business worth doing in the United States. They are the ones that are going to provide the jobs and instill confidence in the economy. Not the government. Government and unions will be the downfall of every business entity in this country left unchecked. What is a potential business owner's incentive for starting a business in the U.S.? 4. For profit healthcare. The government pretty much sucks at running itself, much less any business. That's part of the reason we have trillions of dollars of debt. There are always going to be those who can't afford even the least inexpensive forms. Sure, sponsor those through collaborative efforts. Put everybody's significant other on the policy and then pay accordingly. Look, your compensation is what it is. I can give you more benefits and less in your pocket or vice versa. Your cost to me as your employer is the same. 5. I agree about the military. If we're not wanted, get the heck out of Dodge. While we're at it, send those countries a bill for providing their freedoms if they asked us over. I don't mind not being a global police department. Take care of our borders first. Worry about our allies second and everybody else can take a hike. We can trade with them or somebody else. 6. Drill where the freakin' oil is until we have alternative means. Don't need Saudi oil if we tap into the oil fields in Alaska and offshore. And when you screw up, you pay up. 7. If you are going to make a living manipulating the system, then part of that free healthcare should be spaying and neutering those that continue to spit out babies or provide stud services and have no means or methods of supporting their actions. Minus that, mandatory adoption. Why should the baby factory keep on keeping on and everybody else footing the bill? 40% of all abortions in the U.S. are repeat customers. This is not rocket science. The incentive is just not there. 8. If it feels good, do it. Then, take responsibility for your actions. If your feel good damages someone else, pull out the checkbook and let your insurance companies decide if you are worthy of keeping the same low rates as those that live a less risky lifestyle. And...........by the same token, I should maintain my low rate for maintaining a less risky lifestyle and costing others less.
It's all kindergarten rules. What's fair for the rich is fair for the poor and vice versa. Take 10% from everybody and support the bottom 10% and let free enterprise reign. The reason it hasn't been fixed before is because too many people are cashing in on the status quo. I would guess the first folks that would holler the loudest and the longest would be the small businesses and enterprises surrounding our foreign military bases when we pulled out.
|
|
|
Post by Bingo on Nov 6, 2012 16:58:44 GMT -8
Jason Isbell (ex Drive-by Trucker, now with his own band) had this tweet today. (I think it answers the "Shut Up And Sing" and "You Just Be You, Sugar, And Keep On Making Pretty Music" critics who complain whenever a "celebrity" dares to express a view on a public controversy)
"Remember, folks: Your favorite musical groups are made up of actual people. They make choices and have feelings just like you."
|
|
|
Post by erik on Nov 6, 2012 17:26:09 GMT -8
Quote by slovog:
Well we obviously need a strong military. But throughout our history, we have also been warned of the inherent danger of having standing armies because of the penchant for those in power to use them on a whim. And of course there was what Eisenhower warned us about three days before he left office:
"In the councils of government, we must guard against the acquisition of unwarranted influence, whether sought or unsought, by the military-industrial complex. The potential for the disastrous rise of misplaced power exists and will persist. We must never let the weight of this combination endanger our liberties or democratic processes. We should take nothing for granted. Only an alert and knowledgeable citizenry can compel the proper meshing of the huge industrial and military machinery of defense with our peaceful methods and goals, so that security and liberty may prosper together."
|
|
|
Post by james on Nov 6, 2012 19:29:16 GMT -8
Keith,i am all for to legalise drugs,take it from the dealers,take control,crime/murder rate will drop,then use that money saved to go into getting people off the drugs and the billions saved into health care. I am against drilling more,use that money into alternative energy/fuel. Give working class people,which is middle class and poor people,more money and they will spend it,unlike the rich who will hoard it. Give womens more rights,you free society. Fed up with white rich men telling everyone what to do.
|
|
|
Post by Bingo on Nov 6, 2012 20:42:50 GMT -8
I'm in no way diminishing what appears to be a historic victory - but I also feel this election was in considerable part lost by Republican mistakes. And those mistakes, in alienating many women, many minority voters, and many of the financially more hard-pressed will, if repeated, become increasingly significant. If that party is to retain national significance in the face of likely demographic change, and attitude change among the young, it will need to broaden its appeal and resist the growth of its ideologically more extreme wing.
|
|
|
Post by drizzletown on Nov 6, 2012 21:11:13 GMT -8
WOOT! WOOT!
|
|
|
Post by james on Nov 7, 2012 2:05:43 GMT -8
Reps lost it because the voice of the bigot,the hater was louder than everyone else. T-Party,the comments about Obama,the rape comments,how many Reps stepped forward to challenge this. Its strange to see working class communities who all voted Rep as they think Obama will close to the coal mines and working class comunities voting Obama as they think Romney will close down their jobs. While i can see why ordinary people voted Obama,both parties are for the super greedy rich,who just want more and more from yous,the ordinary people are getting crumbs from the table and it seems like a feast. Most ordinary folk who vote Reps are doing it through their religion or through bigotry.
|
|
|
Post by erik on Nov 7, 2012 7:12:56 GMT -8
Two things I think the GOP is going to have to do in order to stay in business in the future:
One is that they will have to make practically a back-breaking effort to appeal to more women and minorities, because just relying on White and rural voters won't do anymore. Very soon, maybe before this present decade is over, white people won't be the majority race in America, and the GOP is going to have to face this reality.
The second thing they'll have to do is disenfranchise themselves from the full-of-venom-and-bile bunch known as the Tea Party, and supporters like Sarah Palin, Sheldon Addelson and the Koch Brothers. The lid has been blown off on them, and they've proven to be a cancer on the Republicans, whether the Republican Party hierarchy wants to admit it or not. If they don't do both of those things over the next four years, they can look forward to another defeat in 2016.
|
|
|
Post by slovog on Nov 7, 2012 7:44:01 GMT -8
Two things I think the GOP is going to have to do in order to stay in business in the future: One is that they will have to make practically a back-breaking effort to appeal to more women and minorities, because just relying on White and rural voters won't do anymore. Very soon, maybe before this present decade is over, white people won't be the majority race in America, and the GOP is going to have to face this reality. The second thing they'll have to do is disenfranchise themselves from the full-of-venom-and-bile bunch known as the Tea Party, and supporters like Sarah Palin, Sheldon Addelson and the Koch Brothers. The lid has been blown off on them, and they've proven to be a cancer on the Republicans, whether the Republican Party hierarchy wants to admit it or not. If they don't do both of those things over the next four years, they can look forward to another defeat in 2016. I agree to an extent. White male voters over the age of 30 are in the minority. Add their wives and that's the GOP base. States like Georgia will become a battleground state with their Hispanic influx before the next election. Face it, bailouts and unions go along way in buying voter's confidence in the northern states. Obama carried the African-American vote, the Hispanic vote, the single women vote and the 18-30 vote. Romney won the Caucasian vote by the largest margin in history. Sadly, it seems it's all about race rather than issues. What's most disconcerting to me is how diametrically opposed the voter's are in this country. What is important to me is not important to most which has not historically been the case. Obama won 4 of 95 counties in Tennessee. 3 surrounding Memphis and Davidson County where Nashville is located. Every other county was 60/40 GOP. Tennessee has a GOP super majority in it's state house and senate for the first time in over 100 years. It's clearly an urban/rural split. You are right eric. I just told a co-worker that the GOP would have had to run a conservative woman to win this election. Not a Sarah Palin type, which was too far right, but an Elizabeth Dole type. Clearly the moderate WASP type men aren't conducive to winning elections. It's the exact same failings that the Democrats had after Clinton. Winnable elections with crappy candidates.
|
|
|
Post by slovog on Nov 7, 2012 7:51:08 GMT -8
Reps lost it because the voice of the bigot,the hater was louder than everyone else. T-Party,the comments about Obama,the rape comments,how many Reps stepped forward to challenge this. Its strange to see working class communities who all voted Rep as they think Obama will close to the coal mines and working class comunities voting Obama as they think Romney will close down their jobs. While i can see why ordinary people voted Obama,both parties are for the super greedy rich,who just want more and more from yous,the ordinary people are getting crumbs from the table and it seems like a feast. Most ordinary folk who vote Reps are doing it through their religion or through bigotry. That's way too simplistic. Sure there are right wing factions that are beating the anti gay marriage and abortion drum, but those things don't pay the GOP bill. 70% of those that voted for Obama are also opposed to a tax increase. Tax and spend is the mantra of the Democrat Party. To get a more socialist agenda that the far left craves requires increasing taxes and distributing the money collected. (or going further in debt). On some levels it's incredulous that someone would vote that way. In the big picture, the media made alot of the Indiana and Missouri candidates that stuck their foot in their mouth and those guys paid for it individually on election day, but nationally it was just sound bytes. Is it bigotted that 93% of African-Americans voted for the guy with the same color skin as them? Come on.
|
|
|
Post by Bingo on Nov 7, 2012 8:22:25 GMT -8
The religious issue is complex. A large part of the African-American and Latino constituencies tend towards Conservative Church-based views on issues like Gay marriage - but still voted for Obama. On the Republican side, Conservative figures who sometimes sincerely and sometimes in a more knee-jerk way invoke religious arguments don't necessarily represent the mainstream of the party. To most Republicans, people like Mourdock and Aiken are little more than unrepresentative odd balls (though they probably alienated many women voters from the Party as a whole). Bachman probably couldn't win nationally.
America is the most religiously-observant of the major democracies - but both parties would probably benefit from sticking to a sensible compromise on separation of Church and State - the Republicans to refrain from quoting Scripture to justify legislative proposals and constitutional amendments, and the Democrats from trying to force Churches to adopt employment and insurance policies that conflict with their teaching, or gaining a petty reputation from trying to stop institutions saying " Merry Christmas."
I give both leaders credit for generous and principled post-election speeches. I hope that mood is heeded, and lasts
|
|
Ross
Teen Chick
Posts: 699
|
Post by Ross on Nov 7, 2012 11:24:46 GMT -8
i'm sure everything will be great for obama now romney is praying for him
|
|
|
Post by slovog on Nov 7, 2012 11:54:23 GMT -8
The religious issue is complex. A large part of the African-American and Latino constituencies tend towards Conservative Church-based views on issues like Gay marriage - but still voted for Obama. On the Republican side, Conservative figures who sometimes sincerely and sometimes in a more knee-jerk way invoke religious arguments don't necessarily represent the mainstream of the party. To most Republicans, people like Mourdock and Aiken are little more than unrepresentative odd balls (though they probably alienated many women voters from the Party as a whole). Bachman probably couldn't win nationally. America is the most religiously-observant of the major democracies - but both parties would probably benefit from sticking to a sensible compromise on separation of Church and State - the Republicans to refrain from quoting Scripture to justify legislative proposals and constitutional amendments, and the Democrats from trying to force Churches to adopt employment and insurance policies that conflict with their teaching, or gaining a petty reputation from trying to stop institutions saying " Merry Christmas." I give both leaders credit for generous and principled post-election speeches. I hope that mood is heeded, and lasts Exactly Bingo. I really, really believe that there is more common ground in the middle if we can ever talk about the issues. Instead, the directive from the national parties seems to be divide and conquer and the media plays right into it. There is always compromise on most subjects and commonality as to how to proceed and really one man doesn't hold much power other than veto power if there's a grid locked Congress. Still, there is so much difference between cultures in the urban centers and rural areas, that I'm not sure there is common ground on some issues. Most of my Obama friends were calling for prayer and healing this morning on Facebook though. While I have my ideals, I didn't have as much emotionally invested in this presidential campaign. I felt like Romney was a compromise candidate like McCain and I didn't think he would make up as much ground as he did. 5 states swapped from blue to red this cycle. I do feel that Paul Ryan will come out smelling like a rose in the aftermath and may be a good choice. I'm ready for a strong, level headed, conservative woman like Marsha Blackburn from Tennessee or someone of a similar ilk. My cynical side tells me that the Dems can trot out one minority candidate after another and stay in power so long as the whole country doesn't go to Hell in a handbasket.
|
|
|
Post by b@@b on Nov 7, 2012 16:29:19 GMT -8
I voted for Obama but I'm not necessarily excited he won his extension of office. I mainly voted for him because I am apprehensive about Romney, and I also feel I'd rather see Barack in office when some of his policies go more into effect, the ones that have yet to. Then he may be held accountable front and center for their statistical success or failure. Of course that is not popular thinking among the more politically informed voters. Which leads me to the discussion above about "simplistic views". Unfortunately, that is the take a lot of us have. Perhaps, including those "93% Black voters who chose the guy with identical skin". Most might have taken that knee-jerk approach, but likely because they have no better basis on which to make an esteemed decision. A lot of don't have or song want the time to analyze these high profile candidates because history and common sense has proven their campaign vows don't follow through, whether because they 'lied' or exaggerated something, or the Congress is too much an anti-factor to their movements. I listen to so many around me and we enjoy the outlook: "choosing between Republicans and Democrats is like choosing between two different bowls of ****". Many of us, no matter how informed, will choose the one who sounds better, looks better, enunciates better, has similar religious or cultural backgrounds, or, yea, similar skin. It's easier to do, more reviving. We all want our vote to be heard. But with that, I also know my vote is roughly as good as what the electoral college will allow for my state. I know this post is rather 'simple', but I'm content with bucking the trend of needing to vote. If one or the other candidate is truly that bad, he/she won't get in. The rest of society takes care of that. Untill anyone can prove that a candidate is that awful, we always have such close election results. 50-48, 51-49. That's reality. And the right-winger and legt-winger's best arguments to that is..."half the nation is smart and half of it is dumb, so consistently" Lol. What scares me most is when either of these guys gets in and does something ungodly stupid, usually military-related. We can never see that coming.
|
|