[REMOVE ADS]




Page 4 of 4 FirstFirst 1 2 3 4
Results 151 to 164 of 164
  1. #151
    Join Date
    Feb 2012
    Posts
    28,617
    Rep Power
    642
    Soulster, do you ever wonder why they believe that their message is so weak that they have to resort to outright lies and distortions to try to win? For example, the $716 billion Medicare lie. Ryan had the same money taken out in his proposed budget and it only applied to unnecessary spending, but they tried to spin it as the president taking money out of Medicare and leaving seniors in a lurch. Another one was the welfare work requirement change. The president changed it because many governors, most of them Republican [[one former governor, name of Romney) asked to give them the leeway to run their welfare programs without it. He consented [[Bush and Clinton didn't) and they used it against him.

    Your point about core values is 100% correct. Had they stuck with their message instead of trying to distort the president's accomplishments, they probably could have won. That wasn't good enough and our "sorry" president beat them. Who's sorry now?

  2. #152
    Join Date
    Aug 2010
    Posts
    11,552
    Rep Power
    295
    Quote Originally Posted by Jerry Oz View Post
    Your point about core values is 100% correct. Had they stuck with their message instead of trying to distort the president's accomplishments, they probably could have won. That wasn't good enough and our "sorry" president beat them. Who's sorry now?
    Well, this answers your first question. They did stick to their messages, and that's why they couldn't win. They had no choice but to lie about everything. They knew their base was full of unsavory people, and their surrogates were bigots, racists, sexists, and ignorant religious nutjobs. They needed them so they tolerated them. The problem with their plan id that enough people saw through their bullshit. The republicans overplayed their hand. It also makes me wonder just how many of those registered republicans, actually scared of a Romney/Ryan presidency, quietly voted for Obama.

  3. #153
    Join Date
    Aug 2010
    Posts
    14,979
    Rep Power
    402
    Name:  av-5.jpg
Views: 134
Size:  21.1 KB
    As The Orioles once sang: "Thank The Lord! Thank The Lord!"

    I don't have a tremendous amount of faith in The Democrats. But they've got to be 10,000 times better than The Republicans.

  4. #154
    Join Date
    Feb 2011
    Posts
    6,340
    Rep Power
    346
    Quote Originally Posted by robb_k View Post
    Name:  av-5.jpg
Views: 134
Size:  21.1 KB
    As The Orioles once sang: "Thank The Lord! Thank The Lord!"

    I don't have a tremendous amount of faith in The Democrats. But they've got to be 10,000 times better than The Republicans.
    Try 100,000 times better dear robb_k.

    Fondly,

    Roberta

  5. #155
    Join Date
    Aug 2010
    Posts
    11,552
    Rep Power
    295
    Quote Originally Posted by robb_k View Post
    I don't have a tremendous amount of faith in The Democrats. But they've got to be 10,000 times better than The Republicans.
    They have this one last chance to do right by the people. The people gave Obama and the democrats one more chance. If they play this right, they can solidify their place, and in the hearts and minds of the electorate as we watch the GOP crash and burn, as they are hell-bent on doing it their way or the highway.

  6. #156
    Join Date
    Feb 2012
    Posts
    28,617
    Rep Power
    642
    The only solution to the mess that we find ourselves in is a viable third party that is not further out to the left of the Democrats or right of the Republicans. This party can't effect change unless it has at least 20% of both houses of Congress. The Democrats have very little to hang their hats on besides the fact that they aren't as bad as the GOP. In fact, the Republicans probably could have won if they had not gone out of their way to steal the election.

    I think a lot of folks were persuaded that if someone was willing to take your right to vote, then it must be important enough to do. I read an article that reported that one of the first signs that the jig was up for Romney was when they had reports that the lines on election day were extremely long in certain areas [[which I took to mean the areas where they took extra steps to discourage voting).

    If you tell most Americans not to do something, it's bad enough. But to take away our right to do it will only stir the rebellious nature that defines us. They stirred up a hornet's nest unnecessarily and guaranteed their defeat.

  7. #157
    Join Date
    Aug 2010
    Posts
    14,979
    Rep Power
    402
    Name:  av-5.jpg
Views: 115
Size:  21.1 KB
    There is need for more than a third party. There needs to be a system in which the people are represented. There has to be a way for people's grass roots parties to develop, and also get the chance for the same amount of media advertising as the two existing parties, and also there needs to be a way the the people can elect representatives that won't become beholden to big money [[e.g. that helps elect them, and that gives them money and favours, while and after they are in office). I don't know if that ever can happen. EVERY governmental system has the problem of graft and monied interests running the office-holders like puppets [[to some extent). But, in Europe and the British Commonwealth countries, it is held in check, to some extent, by several parties and coalitions. In USA the many disparate interests are channeled into only two parties. So, it's difficult to get what they want. It is almost always watered down until it is of little value.

  8. #158
    Join Date
    Feb 2012
    Posts
    28,617
    Rep Power
    642
    I agree with you 100%. However, representative government died in Washington, DC about 100 million Americans ago. It's impossible for Mr. Smith to go to the capital and enact his agenda without getting 300+ other congressmen to sign on. Consequently, he'll sell out 19 of the 20 promises he stumped on in order to get 19 other congressmen to pull for his one big one. He'll do the same for them. You have to build a coalition to do anything and that's the problem.

    It used to be that you had moderates in both parties that could work with each other, but now moderates are run out of Congress on a rail if they work with someone from the other side. You already have Boehner and McConnell digging in on taxes and the election isn't even a week past. No Republican is going to cross that line, even with the fiscal cliff looming in seven weeks. It's crazy; I can't be fiscally conservative but socially progressive and vote in the interests of my constituents? I have to be both and vote in the interests of my party? Crazy.

    If we were to have representative government, we'd have to divide the country into 3-4 "super states". Each would comprise 75-100 million citizens and would be geographically related to each other. If one of them wanted to pass progressive laws, it could do so without the rest of the country going ape-shit. And if someone didn't appreciate living in a super state where abortion was illegal, he/she could move to one where it was not. The same for taxes. The same for education and highways. The Senate and president could then focus on the interests of the entire country and let the piddly stuff be handled down below.

    We have outgrown any possibility of representative government and only a constitutional change in how the very nation is comprised will bring the voice back to the people.

  9. #159
    Join Date
    Aug 2010
    Posts
    11,552
    Rep Power
    295
    Quote Originally Posted by Jerry Oz View Post
    The only solution to the mess that we find ourselves in is a viable third party that is not further out to the left of the Democrats or right of the Republicans. This party can't effect change unless it has at least 20% of both houses of Congress.
    Well, there is the Libertarian Party, but they are too closely aligned with the republicans, and their platform concerning the "free market" and eliminating the minimum wage and unions just won't sell. We have seen the proof of that last week.

    Like I said before, now is the opportunity for the Democrats to make their mark. Trouble is, they are in the same kind of bind the republicans are in. The independents want them to work with the republicans, who, BTW, still refuse, even after their shellacking last Tuesday, and the party's supporters who want Obama to stand up to them. Personally, I want Obama to stand up to the republicans because we have already seen what that the GOP still isn't interested in anything but having their own way. The voters lost faith in Obama over the last four years precisely because he kept trying to negotiate with them. All they did was slap him around. Every single Obama supporter I know wants Obama to FIGHT, not "get along". Clearly, Obama stands for the people.

  10. #160
    Join Date
    Aug 2010
    Posts
    13,337
    Rep Power
    100
    I liked Harry Ried's comment regarding Boenner's stating that the Repubs would like to work with the Democrats. Saying the Dems are willing to work with them but they shouldn't think that they are going to come in and push us around.

  11. #161
    Join Date
    Feb 2012
    Posts
    28,617
    Rep Power
    642
    The president has the high ground right now. Nothing has to happen to raise taxes because both the middle-class and Bush tax cuts are going to expire if nobody does anything. It's possible to extend one without the other; I'm convinced that Romney would have extended the Bush cuts but let the middle-class cuts expire. The GOP is willing to let all expire in order to push President Obama into a corner wherein he will relinquish his demand to raise taxes on the wealthy. He should let them all expire since they won't extend one without the other and paint them as the party of higher taxes. In that case, it would be easier for him to tell the country that he tried than it would for them. I can easily see a total reversal of what happend in 2010 if that occurs.

  12. #162
    Join Date
    Feb 2012
    Posts
    28,617
    Rep Power
    642
    Quote Originally Posted by soulster View Post
    Well, there is the Libertarian Party, but they are too closely aligned with the republicans, and their platform concerning the "free market" and eliminating the minimum wage and unions just won't sell. We have seen the proof of that last week.
    A third party only benefits the system if it fills the gaps between the two existing entities. The libertarians are further to the right than the Republicans, so they aren't serving a role for compromise. Only when we have a substantial amount of elected representatives who are socially progressive/fiscally conservative or socially conservative/fiscally progressive can there be compromise.

  13. #163
    Join Date
    Aug 2010
    Posts
    11,552
    Rep Power
    295
    Quote Originally Posted by Jerry Oz View Post
    The president has the high ground right now. Nothing has to happen to raise taxes because both the middle-class and Bush tax cuts are going to expire if nobody does anything. It's possible to extend one without the other; I'm convinced that Romney would have extended the Bush cuts but let the middle-class cuts expire. The GOP is willing to let all expire in order to push President Obama into a corner wherein he will relinquish his demand to raise taxes on the wealthy. He should let them all expire since they won't extend one without the other and paint them as the party of higher taxes. In that case, it would be easier for him to tell the country that he tried than it would for them. I can easily see a total reversal of what happend in 2010 if that occurs.
    I hope Obama calls their bluff, as what the public wants. Romney would have made those cuts for the wealthy permanent and stuck it to the rest of us. That was certain. There is a reason he had all that corporate and individual wealth pouring in almost 400 million dollars into his campaign through Karl Rove's super-pac. That's not even including the money the others contributed.

  14. #164
    Join Date
    Aug 2010
    Posts
    11,552
    Rep Power
    295
    Quote Originally Posted by Jerry Oz View Post
    A third party only benefits the system if it fills the gaps between the two existing entities. The libertarians are further to the right than the Republicans, so they aren't serving a role for compromise. Only when we have a substantial amount of elected representatives who are socially progressive/fiscally conservative or socially conservative/fiscally progressive can there be compromise.
    I doubt it. You saw that the Libertarians are aligned with the republicans, or vice versa. The democrats really have no other off-shoot or third party that are aligned with them.

Bookmarks

Posting Permissions

  • You may not post new threads
  • You may not post replies
  • You may not post attachments
  • You may not edit your posts
  •  

[REMOVE ADS]

Ralph Terrana
MODERATOR

Welcome to Soulful Detroit! Kindly Consider Turning Off Your Ad BlockingX
Soulful Detroit is a free service that relies on revenue from ad display [regrettably] and donations. We notice that you are using an ad-blocking program that prevents us from earning revenue during your visit.
Ads are REMOVED for Members who donate to Soulful Detroit. [You must be logged in for ads to disappear]
DONATE HERE »
And have Ads removed.