Tear licking? Where are you from? Where the Hell does that come from? I have never heard that before. What the Hell is tear licking? First, it isn’t true that the Democrats didn’t pick up seats in the House. Because Democrats did pick up seats in the House and may pick up even more as some red states have not finished counting their votes, most notably Arizona. One of the things that distinguishes this election as a shellacking for Republicans is that Republicans were widely expected to build upon their position in the Senate as Democrats had more seats at risk. And Republicans lost seats in the Senate. And despite gerrymandering Republicans lost seats in the House and will likely lose more after all the ballots have been counted. http://politicalticker.blogs.cnn.com/2012/11/12/democrats-pick-up-another-seat-in-the-house/ http://www.sfgate.com/news/article/Obama-wins-Ill-Dems-pick-up-4-US-House-seats-4011142.php
tear licking just read the comments Oh a guess your right there was a gain of 5-8 democrat seats... back in 2010 there was a loss of 63 democrat seats, so in compression that not much of a gain, especially since democrats are 20 seats away from majority.
Whats interesting is the question you just asked...why? Why is the voter turnout over 86% in Austria, Chile, Italy, Iceland, New Zealand, Denmark, Germany, and Sweden. Why doesnt the US government just simply ASK??? They could set up a public website where people could send in an explanation for not voting in 100 words or less. Anyone could access the site and read all the replies. I believe the reasons are systemic...but there will always be -10% of the population who will not vote regardless of the system. Nor should those people be voting.
There are probarbly many individual reasons, but I think one of the main things that really counted against Romney was the fact he was seen as rich guy wanting other other rich guys to get richer at the expense of everybody else, he didn't exactly come across well to the poorer sections of America's society and right now there is a whole lot more poor people than there used to be. People might have been unhappy with Obama for not doing enough to sort out the economy, but at the same time they were never going to be thrilled with the idea of Romney taking money out of their wallets to fatten the those of the very rich, this is where the Republican Party now have a real problem as being seen as the party for the rich.
Yes, and those are the people who should NOT be choosing our leaders...those who dont care. In a way, your boyfriend is doing a great public service by leaving himself out.
I think people who care about their jobs, their families, their avocations etc far more than they care about politics are EXACTLY the kind of people we need to encourage to vote. Politics is largely bullshit; you don't need to be a bullshit expert to be able to vote.
Hear! Hear! Substitute information and reason for 'politics' and you would have there the ideal voter, either way....as long as he/she has considered instead of 'believed' someone's slogans etc. Yeah!
Obviously, politics affects all those aspects of life...employment, family, environment, living standards, etc. Claiming they are unrelated is no excuse.
This is what George Washington warned about in his farewell address to the nation. He never joined a political party himself and cautioned against their emergence. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/George_Washington's_Farewell_Address#Political_parties
Not really. The time you are willing to get up in the morning, how you treat your wife, whether you are willing to go to school, whether you smoke or not, whether you drink and drive - all of those affect your life a great deal. Who the president is? Doesn't matter 1/1000 as much. Still an issue, of course, but not nearly as big. People _should_ be far, far more concerned with their lives than with politics. Who would you rather have voting - someone who lives in their mother's basement and spends ten hours a day on line arguing over politics, or the founder of a small company who has been working his butt off for two years to get his business off the ground?[/QUOTE]
In spite of the gerrymandering and voter suppression instituted by Republicans this election cycle, Democrats picked up seats. That was unexpected. Were it not for the gerrymandering, its my understanding Democrats would have taken back the House. Democrats actually recieved more votes in the House this year. "Democrats earned more combined votes in the House elections this year, which means they won the popular vote for that chamber of Congress." - Washington Post.com http://www.washingtonpost.com/blogs...fc42b0a-2dd8-11e2-89d4-040c9330702a_blog.html And then there is the small matter of the power in Washington. Since Republicans have a majority in the House and hold many non-mainstream notions, they are going to be in the hot seat. They are between a rock and a hard place. If they yield, do the right thing, compromise with Democrats on the fiscal crisis, they may get primaried 2 years from now. If they don't compromise, they will send the nation into a recession with the Republican brand attached and be facing a very angry electorate in 2 years. It’s a tough spot for Republicans. The emerging Jindal wing of the party provides a way out for Republicans. If Jindal wins, Republicans will get real and honest with their base, disgarding demagoguery for honesty. So they would be able to do the right thing for the nation without alienating their base. If they follow Jindal, they won’t have to be the party of stupid any longer and that would be a good thing. I hope Jindal wins, but unfortunately I don’t think he will. Huntsman tried it this year and it didn’t work out for him. The party instead favored the media crazies like Cain, Bachman, Perry, Gingrich, Santorum, et al. But I can always hope.
That depends on the details...someone who spends time debating politics might know political and economic history far better than a businessman...who might not even be producing a worthwhile product.
Well, both actually. We all have a role to play whether we like it or not. The problem only comes into it when either one does not bother to think things through and just becomes a gullible/willing (for whatever reason) to just 'go along' with whatever political con happens to appeal/affect their personal/ideological/religious/selfish etc prejudices/predispositions. We are all human, whether small business owner or scientist or basement-dwelling internet politics-arguer. The point is that when it comes to actually voting, one should have at least taken a few minutes to think things through away from the sloganeering and the fear mongering and the conning etc etc, and then just go with some REASON rather than prejudices etc etc. Just because one owns a small business is no guarantee of superiority/trustworthiness....especially if your small business ethics puts profit ahead of safety/fairness for consumers/public at large. Every case should be viwed on its merits....and that's what the GOP has destroyed for half the US population....because they divide, alarm, lie deny, scam, pervert etc etc in order that the populace will be confused and just believe them without any skepticism involved anywhere along the way. They are hypocrites who break every religious/moral/ethical/political rule in the book....and then have the hide to pretend they are better than others and should be trusted. Well, we found out different over the last few years....and the GOP 'machine/propagandists' are a laughing stock....not least because of their ludicrously addle-headed 'reactions' to LOSING because more than half the population didn't fall for their latest con attempts. Business or private is not the issue, it is whether information and reason is applied before making choices. Any decisions based on old ideologies and conman plays (religious or political) is now increasingly seen for what it is....because it's all over the internet and we can access it all...something which previous generations could not do...hence the historical mistakes all over the globe. We have the tools and access and remedies now.....let's learn from the past mistakes/ignorance/malice....and leave them in the past.....and just get on with what is indicated that will meet the challenges of the future on a global scale. Cheers and good luck and good thinking to us all!
System/user-browser difficulties resulted in multiple copies of the above post. This copy now erased by RC. Thanks.
System/user-browser difficulties resulted in multiple copies of the above post. This copy now erased by RC. Thanks.
I agree. I also replied just before you did, with something similar embedded in it, but my post seems to be somewhere in the ether! PS: This one seems to have got through first time! Go figure. Cheers.
Perhaps you have never experienced a real life unfolding of what happens when people with this approach reach a critical mass. My family lived through the hyperinflation in 1920s Germany, the rise of totalitarianism, and a world war which destroyed dozens of lives. The memory was fresh in the minds of my grandparents...when it was handed down to me.
Here's an interesting analysis of this issue by a man who SHOULD be the Republican Party's core constituency, explaining why he is NOT. http://www.ericgarland.co/2012/11/0...republican-strategist-regarding-white-people/ This is a white, affluent man who runs his own business. Some of his ancestors came over on the Mayflower. He hates laziness. He has a college degree and started his own business. He's a job creator. He lives in the suburbs in a Republican-majority state. He and his wife (also a well-educated professional in the medical field) hate the Republican attitude toward science, particularly that evolution is false and that women don't get pregnant from being raped. They can't stand the Republican attitude toward climate change, which is that it's a hoax. They're outraged by the American health care system (especially the wife, who is part of it), which is 60% more expensive than the second-most expensive system (Switzerland), yet delivers results on a par with the health care system in the former Soviet bloc. The Republicans call our system "the best in the world," while health insurance is so expensive that it perturbs the job market and our entire business climate. People with advanced cancer go to ERs because they can't afford primary care. Yet the Republicans keep equating the European health care system to Stalinist socialism. They have only contempt for the Republican attitude toward war. He assumes that we all know what he's talking about, but for the benefit of our non-American friends, we are now in the longest war in our history and have nothing to show for it except the destruction of the only secular, pro-Western government in the entire region (Iraq--yes, some of you dispute this point), so that in addition to everything else that's going wrong there, there is now a standoff between the Sunnis and Shiites. Oh yeah, and Al Qaeda is now headquartered in Pakistan, a country that is weakly governed, doesn't like us very much, and has nuclear weapons. They are outraged at the last Three Republican administrations' economic policies: increasing the national debt to today's critical level and blaming it on Obama. (When Reagan came into office it was less than one trillion dollars! He added an extra zero during a time of unprecedented peace and prosperity.) They are angry over the Republicans' attitude toward gay marriage and the LGBT community in general. As he puts it, we straight people have not exactly honored the institution of marriage over the past few decades. Please Register or Log in to view the hidden image!
How about maybe Obama's camp won. Because they put a tight lid on a scandal. That involved many people. And claimed the W-H and others didn't know jack shit. And made a dang good cover up till after an election.
And just what scandal would that be exactly? Not even Romney is offering that excuse. And if it is such a scandal that no one knows about, how could it have affected the election - given no one knew about it before or after the election?
