NationStates Jolt Archive

Democrats have taken the House and will probably take the Senate - unless something has changed since I got out of my car.

Now what?

Now, the democrats have a tremendous burden.

They did not win because of their success.

They won because of the Republican's failure.

The democrats now have two years of opportunity. But, they will be under a very hot spotlight. Any missteps will be pounced upon by the Republicans with gusto and magnified by the circumstances that gave them their victory of last night.

I believe that, if the democrats do not produce in these two years, the 2008 elections shall bring a definite Republican victory. Whether for good or ill.

The electorate's memory is short. In 2008, they will not remember why they put the democrats in office. They will only remember what happened as a result.

This is a great opportunity for the democrats to demonstrate that they deserve their victory. But, it is also a great opportunity for Republicans to focus on their failures and correct them.

For me, the democrat party is a failure in and of itself. The Republicans - well, the current set - have not demonstrated themselves as all that much better. I am forced to have faith in the Republican ideology, despite the fact that few Republican leaders seem to give that ideology much credence. But, at least the Republicans have their ideology going for them, even if it's ignored. The democrats lack even that.

Unlike a lot of my Dem friends, I can't really get excited about the results of this election. I think it will only make things worse for the sane minority in America. If the Dems are in power by this narrow a margin, then they can be blocked from actually accomplishing anything meaningful while also being blamed for every single thing that goes wrong (even if they were trying to fix it).

I also am disgusted with my country for the fact that this election was even remotely close. If the recent years haven't been enough to get through to people, then nothing will. The fact that cowards, racists, thieves, and corrupt lying jackasses are still actually politically competative is a disgrace. I'm glad I'm not planning to ever have kids, because I would hate to have to explain to them how their future was destroyed by the idiocy and petty hatreds of my generation.

Unlike a lot of my Dem friends, I can't really get excited about the results of this election. I think it will only make things worse for the sane minority in America. If the Dems are in power by this narrow a margin, then they can be blocked from actually accomplishing anything meaningful while also being blamed for every single thing that goes wrong (even if they were trying to fix it).

I also am disgusted with my country for the fact that this election was even remotely close. If the recent years haven't been enough to get through to people, then nothing will. The fact that cowards, racists, thieves, and corrupt lying jackasses are still actually politically competative is a disgrace. I'm glad I'm not planning to ever have kids, because I would hate to have to explain to them how their future was destroyed by the idiocy and petty hatreds of my generation.

psst, bottle, we won. Yeah ok it might make things hard, yeah it's a shame republicans are as competative as they are, yes a bigger victory would have been better but...geez girl lighten up.

We won.

psst, bottle, we won. Yeah ok it might make things hard, yeah it's a shame republicans are as competative as they are, yes a bigger victory would have been better but...geez girl lighten up.

We won.
I'm not a Democrat, so I'm not really a part of the "we," unfortunately. My own political orientation is seldom represented at all in our government.

However, I am pleased to see that a great many anti-choice representatives have been replaced with pro-choice representatives. That is a very pleasing win. I'm also happy to see that the first state has rejected a gay marriage ban thingy, which is super, particularly since a Red state managed to do it. Good for them!

It is quite common for the presidential party to lose seats in the "off-year" election.

But its not easy picking between two horid parties. both have been sold out and purchased by special interest. Neither party consists of the middle class or lower class. Neither party cares about those who don't vote. Poor people don't vote, blacks don't vote, mexicans don't vote, the young does not vote. Once those groups start voting, both parties will cater to them. Until then, the young such as ourselves will never feel like either party represents us...shame. Shame on everyone really. The politicians and the public!

But, at least the Republicans have their ideology going for them, even if it's ignored. The democrats lack even that.

Haha, you still fucking lost, bitch.

And that's what you deserve.
Democrats don't lack ideology, you just refuse to see it because your head is stuck so far up the Republican's ass following their bullshit propaganda to the source.


but other than that, you make a valid point. They won on Republican failures and any missteps will be taken advantage of by Republican propagandists like the ones you obviously follow and they will be back in power in the next election.

It is quite common for the presidential party to lose seats in the "off-year" election.

But its not easy picking between two horid parties. both have been sold out and purchased by special interest. Neither party consists of the middle class or lower class. Neither party cares about those who don't vote. Poor people don't vote, blacks don't vote, mexicans don't vote, the young does not vote. Once those groups start voting, both parties will cater to them. Until then, the young such as ourselves will never feel like either party represents us...shame. Shame on everyone really. The politicians and the public!
Call me cynical, but I feel much the same about it. Neither party actually represents my values, my priorities, or my interests. It's just that the Democrats are less efficient and ruthless, so I figure they won't be able to sell out my rights and freedoms as quickly as the Republicans will.

Haha, you still fucking lost, bitch.

Ah. Cursing.

Thank you for validating my low opinion of democrats.

And that's what you deserve.

Perhaps. That was an implied sidebar of my original post. Kudos for noticing.

Democrats don't lack ideology,

Don't recall saying they did. Would you care to show where that was?

Thanx.

you just refuse to see it because your head is stuck so far up the Republican's ass following their bullshit propaganda to the source.

I see the democrat ideology quite well, thank you. I merely oppose it in toto.

Silly me, I happen to think that the Constitution is the Supreme Law of the land and that my money belongs to me, not others.

They won on Republican failures and any missteps will be taken advantage of

Then, I would suggest that they make no missteps.

Wouldn't you agree?

by Republican propagandists like the ones you obviously follow and they will be back in power in the next election.

I do?

Who, pray, are they and how do you know?

Ah. Cursing.

Thank you for validating my low opinion of democrats.
Your post validated my continued low opinion of Republicans, and you.


Don't recall saying they did. Would you care to show where that was?

But, at least the Republicans have their ideology going for them, even if it's ignored. The democrats lack even that.
Nice try, Skippy.


I see the democrat ideology quite well, thank you. I merely oppose it in toto.

Silly me, I happen to think that the Constitution is the Supreme Law of the land and that my money belongs to me, not others.
Gibberish.

And now that the 2008 Presidential campaign kicks into gear, I would like to nominate...


...my pants.

Who will be opposed by a box of tic-tacs.

Which object will stand for which party has yet to be determined, but my pants are prudes, so they'll probably wind up with the R's.

I see the democrat ideology quite well, thank you. I merely oppose it in toto.

Silly me, I happen to think that the Constitution is the Supreme Law of the land and that my money belongs to me, not others.

If you think the Republicans support the Constitution or your right to your own money, I've got a piece of the True Cross I'd like to sell you.

They don't give two shits about your Constitutional rights, and they've been more than happy to violate those rights at every profitable opportunity. They're also more than willing to spend you, and the rest of the country, into a debt the likes of which the world has never seen before. Sure, they'll cut your taxes for you whenever you want...and that won't change the fact that you'll be pouring money down the hole they've dug.

Honestly, if you're about fiscal responsibility and minimal government, then the last 6 years should have amply demonstrated that the Republican Party is not for you. Granted, the Dems aren't exactly a wet dream for you either, but they're less likely to SUCCEED in doing all the things you hate.

Please forgive my ignorance - i'm not an expert on the USA political system - but are there only 2 parties to choose from?????????????/:confused:

Why is this?

Is it due to the power within Congress and the Senate required?

I think USA needs more parties, then you can get coalition governments and enter stalemates like Germany.

Here in Britain we are still kinda lodged between the Tories and Labour, the Liberal Democrats are a close third and then there are a few small parties (that have no chance in hell of getting into power) but its taken so long to develop a third major party.

I hope things get better soom though

Unlike a lot of my Dem friends, I can't really get excited about the results of this election. I think it will only make things worse for the sane minority in America. If the Dems are in power by this narrow a margin, then they can be blocked from actually accomplishing anything meaningful while also being blamed for every single thing that goes wrong (even if they were trying to fix it).

I also am disgusted with my country for the fact that this election was even remotely close. If the recent years haven't been enough to get through to people, then nothing will. The fact that cowards, racists, thieves, and corrupt lying jackasses are still actually politically competative is a disgrace. I'm glad I'm not planning to ever have kids, because I would hate to have to explain to them how their future was destroyed by the idiocy and petty hatreds of my generation.

agree, hope the world ends soon so I don't have to think about the horror, injustice, genocide, and on and on and on that happens every day. fuck it all.

It is quite common for the presidential party to lose seats in the "off-year" election.

But its not easy picking between two horid parties. both have been sold out and purchased by special interest. Neither party consists of the middle class or lower class. Neither party cares about those who don't vote. Poor people don't vote, blacks don't vote, mexicans don't vote, the young does not vote. Once those groups start voting, both parties will cater to them. Until then, the young such as ourselves will never feel like either party represents us...shame. Shame on everyone really. The politicians and the public!

OMG, political parties will pay attention to the people who actually say something, as opposed to just sitting there dumbstruck and silent.

Please forgive my ignorance - i'm not an expert on the USA political system - but are there only 2 parties to choose from?????????????/:confused:

Why is this?

Is it due to the power within Congress and the Senate required?

I think USA needs more parties, then you can get coalition governments and enter stalemates like Germany.

Here in Britain we are still kinda lodged between the Tories and Labour, the Liberal Democrats are a close third and then there are a few small parties (that have no chance in hell of getting into power) but its taken so long to develop a third major party.

I hope things get better soom though

It's been this way since 1800. Every so often one party or another dies off, but, another party steps up to take it's place.

Furthermore, it's a remnant of the personal animosities of our founding fathers.

Please forgive my ignorance - i'm not an expert on the USA political system - but are there only 2 parties to choose from?????????????/:confused:

Essentially, yes. There are other parties, and there are candidates who run as Independent tickets, but for the most part it is a two-party system.


Why is this?

Because not enough people listened to Thomas Jefferson.


Is it due to the power within Congress and the Senate required?

Not really, it's more about the money and the existing networks. Campaigning costs bundles in the US, and the entrenched parties have resources and connections that new parties can't normally compete with. We've also been living in a two-party system for so long that most people don't consider third-party options to really be serious, so it become a self-fulfilling prophesy.


I think USA needs more parties, then you can get coalition governments and enter stalemates like Germany.

Here in Britain we are still kinda lodged between the Tories and Labour, the Liberal Democrats are a close third and then there are a few small parties (that have no chance in hell of getting into power) but its taken so long to develop a third major party.

I hope things get better soom though
YES. Millions of gallons of yes.

Words cannot express how much I wish the US were not still victim to this two-party bullshit.

Your post validated my continued low opinion of Republicans, and you.

Imagine my concern.

Nice try, Skippy.

Ah, comprehension problem. Very well, I'll elaborate.
Democrats lack the Republican ideology, Smuckers.

Gibberish.

Why, of course it is - to you...

If you think the Republicans support the Constitution or your right to your own money, I've got a piece of the True Cross I'd like to sell you.

This would be one of the failures that I mentioned earlier.

But, their views are far superior to the democrats, weak though it is.

Granted, the Dems aren't exactly a wet dream for you either, but they're less likely to SUCCEED in doing all the things you hate.

I believe they will fail. But, we will see.

Democrats lack the Republican ideology
You say that like it's a bad thing :)

Please forgive my ignorance - i'm not an expert on the USA political system - but are there only 2 parties to choose from?????????????/:confused:

We have lots of parties to choose from.

Why is this?

Money. Republicans and Democrats have *way* more money than all of the other Parties combined.

Cheers Bottle



Words cannot express how much I wish the US were not still victim to this two-party bullshit.


Viva la revolution???????????

Even that would be a logistical nightmare your country is too big....:headbang:

It is quite common for the presidential party to lose seats in the "off-year" election.

But its not easy picking between two horid parties. both have been sold out and purchased by special interest. Neither party consists of the middle class or lower class. Neither party cares about those who don't vote. Poor people don't vote, blacks don't vote, mexicans don't vote, the young does not vote. Once those groups start voting, both parties will cater to them. Until then, the young such as ourselves will never feel like either party represents us...shame. Shame on everyone really. The politicians and the public!

I'd like to point out that in the off year elections of Bill Clinton's second term they gained five seats. I do concede that you are right as far of the law of averages go.

This would be one of the failures that I mentioned earlier.

But, their views are far superior to the democrats, weak though it is.

I'm guessing that you don't want to elaborate on what you mean here, since you have resisted doing so thus far...?


I believe they will fail. But, we will see.
You can wait and see if you want. I know, beyond any shadow of a doubt, that our government will continue to fail for at least the next several election cycles. Given the way the deck is currently stacked, there is no possible way to succeed in the short term. We've got so many layers of failure to peel back before we even reach "neutral." However, hopefully the failures will be less spectacular now that there is some form of opposition party (however pitiful it may be).

Ah, comprehension problem. Very well, I'll elaborate.
Democrats lack the Republican ideology, Smuckers.
The Republican ideology is what? Slander your opponent and pretend you give a fuck about the Constitution while running on a ticket of no taxes and that money grows on trees?

Democrats lack the Republican ideology, Smuckers.

Telling the rednecks what they want to hear, then stabbing them in the back with even worse policies?

Please forgive my ignorance - i'm not an expert on the USA political system - but are there only 2 parties to choose from?????????????/:confused:

There are many parties to choose from. Or, one need not be of any party.

Why is this?

Is it due to the power within Congress and the Senate required?

No. Parties are not required. They are simply a result of constituents splitting into like-minded camps of their own choosing.

I think USA needs more parties, then you can get coalition governments and enter stalemates like Germany.

Dear Lord, save us from a parliamentary system. I'll stick with the Constitution.

I hope things get better soom though

We will see. The ball's in the dem's court. Let's see if they return or net it.

Telling the rednecks what they want to hear, then stabbing them in the back with even worse policies?
"Vote for us! We'll cut taxes for rich people, cut funding for your kids' schools, send you and your children into combat so that war profiteers can afford new ivory back-scratchers, and ensure that you never, ever have a chance of climbing out of the crushing debt we've gotten you into!

But we'll talk about how we hate faggots and uppity women and brown people while we do all this! You hate those icky types, right? Yeah, us too!

Oh, and you can keep your guns, provided you don't have to sell them to pay for the prescriptions we have ensured that you cannot afford any longer!"

It amazes me that so many people are gullible enough to buy what the Republicans are selling. Yeah, sure they believe in small government...suuuuuure they do. Just like they believe in fiscal conservativism. And magic fairies.

Silly me, I happen to think that the Constitution is the Supreme Law of the land and that my money belongs to me, not others.

Then you surely support this:

Amendment XVI
The Congress shall have power to lay and collect taxes on incomes, from whatever source derived, without apportionment among the several states, and without regard to any census or enumeration.

Ah yes...we go from one pile of total, utter shit to another. Personally, I'd have all politicians hung and shot...we'll start with Monkey Boy in office and work our way down the ladder of failure.

I'm guessing that you don't want to elaborate on what you mean here, since you have resisted doing so thus far...?

Why should I bother?

My opinion is that the Republican ideology is superior to that of the democrat's. Would my elaboration give you an epiphany? I doubt it, so why bother?

Unfortunately, most Republican leaders have forgotten that ideology. But, that is in no way the fault of the ideology.

You can wait and see if you want.

I have no choice.

Democrats lack the Republican ideology, Smuckers.


Well ... yeah .... if the Democrats shared the Republican ideology, then why have 2 Parties?

You have to understand the Democratic Party. We're not a hive-mind collective. We range everywhere from Dennis Kucinich and Howard Dean and Nancy Pelosi to Joe Leiberman and Zell Miller and Robert Byrd.

The Democratic Party is as diverse as America, which is why the Democratic Party *should* represent America.

Ah yes...we go from one pile of total, utter shit to another. Personally, I'd have all politicians hung and shot...we'll start with Monkey Boy in office and work our way down the ladder of failure.

A Coup d'Etat then........?

Apologies, bottle, for my rudeness, I thought you were pantless.

Still, it is not worthwhile to go into the ideology of the Republican party. I believe we all - well, those of us in the US - are aware of what it is.

But, I do not deny that it is rarely followed by those who claim adherence.

Pants or tic-tacs! Decide now! President forever!

And now that the 2008 Presidential campaign kicks into gear, I would like to nominate...


...my pants.

Who will be opposed by a box of tic-tacs.

Which object will stand for which party has yet to be determined, but my pants are prudes, so they'll probably wind up with the R's.

Pants or tic-tacs! Decide now! President forever!

Tic Tacs! I hate pants. *waves genitals violently*

A Coup d'Etat then........?

Hey buddy, if you've got the men I can get the guns..

The Republican ideology is what? Slander your opponent and pretend you give a fuck about the Constitution while running on a ticket of no taxes and that money grows on trees?

"No taxes?"

Hardly.

But, only those taxes that are necessary according to Article I, Section 8. That's it. No social programs.

As for slander, high thee to a mirror.

Tic Tacs! I hate pants. *waves genitals violently*

Oww..

"Vote for us! We'll cut taxes for rich people, cut funding for your kids' schools, send you and your children into combat so that war profiteers can afford new ivory back-scratchers, and ensure that you never, ever have a chance of climbing out of the crushing debt we've gotten you into!

But we'll talk about how we hate faggots and uppity women and brown people while we do all this! You hate those icky types, right? Yeah, us too!

Oh, and you can keep your guns, provided you don't have to sell them to pay for the prescriptions we have ensured that you cannot afford any longer!"

It amazes me that so many people are gullible enough to buy what the Republicans are selling. Yeah, sure they believe in small government...suuuuuure they do. Just like they believe in fiscal conservativism. And magic fairies.

Magic fairies are the best!

Democrats have taken the House and will probably take the Senate - unless something has changed since I got out of my car.

Now what?

Now, the democrats have a tremendous burden.

They did not win because of their success.

They won because of the Republican's failure.

The democrats now have two years of opportunity. But, they will be under a very hot spotlight. Any missteps will be pounced upon by the Republicans with gusto and magnified by the circumstances that gave them their victory of last night.

I believe that, if the democrats do not produce in these two years, the 2008 elections shall bring a definite Republican victory. Whether for good or ill.

The electorate's memory is short. In 2008, they will not remember why they put the democrats in office. They will only remember what happened as a result.

This is a great opportunity for the democrats to demonstrate that they deserve their victory. But, it is also a great opportunity for Republicans to focus on their failures and correct them.

For me, the democrat party is a failure in and of itself. The Republicans - well, the current set - have not demonstrated themselves as all that much better. I am forced to have faith in the Republican ideology, despite the fact that few Republican leaders seem to give that ideology much credence. But, at least the Republicans have their ideology going for them, even if it's ignored. The democrats lack even that.

And here we see the Republican equivalent of the Democrats' "You cheated" refrain after an election: You didn't win, we blew it!

How does it go? Hmm ... you lost, get over it. :rolleyes: Gee, I've wanted to say that for such a long time.

And here we see the Republican equivalent of the Democrats' "You cheated" refrain after an election: You didn't win, we blew it!

How does it go? Hmm ... you lost, get over it. :rolleyes: Gee, I've wanted to say that for such a long time.

And to think that Missouri was won by the Democrats. Who'd've thought...?

"No taxes?"

Hardly.

But, only those taxes that are necessary according to Article I, Section 8. That's it. No social programs.

As for slander, high thee to a mirror.
Then what taxes are necessary? Republicans don't believe in funding education, healthcare, or any other social system? Oh yeah, taxes for war mongering and big business pandering. Hurray for "necessary" taxes!

Then you surely support this:

Unfortunately, I must.

But, the monies derived therefrom must be apportioned among only those items enumerated by Article I, Section 8 of the US Constitution.

"Congress has not unlimited powers to provide for the general welfare, but only those specifically enumerated."
-- Thomas Jefferson

"With respect to the words general welfare, I have always regarded them as qualified by the detail of powers (enumerated in the Constitution) connected with them. To take them in a literal and unlimited sense would be a metamorphosis of the Constitution into a character which there is a host of proofs was not contemplated by its creators"
-- James Madison

Then what taxes are necessary? Republicans don't believe in funding education, healthcare, or any other social system? Oh yeah, taxes for war mongering and big business pandering. Hurray for "necessary" taxes!

But if we don't tax businesses at a negative percentage, the terrorists win!

Why should I bother?

I dunno, because I'm a curious little monkey and it might entertain you to play around with me a bit?


My opinion is that the Republican ideology is superior to that of the democrat's. Would my elaboration give you an epiphany? I doubt it, so why bother?

Unfortunately, most Republican leaders have forgotten that ideology. But, that is in no way the fault of the ideology.

Here's what I think the disconnect is:

You appear to support an ideology that you admit the Republicans have "forgotten." If they've "forgotten" it, then they clearly aren't actually representing that ideology. The fact that they might have once represented it doesn't do you a lick of good if they're not representing it now.

Hell, the Democrats used to be the "conservative" party in this country. They used to support almost the same ideology as the modern Republicans do. So? We only move one direction through time, at least where I live, so it doesn't do much good to vote for a party based on what they used to believe.

The sad fact is that Republicans are not a party that supports small government or fiscal responsibility any more. Yes, they once espoused that ideology, but so what? Their deeds didn't live up to their claims even when that was their main campaign thrust, and now they aren't even really pretending to support that ideology any more. They are open about advocating more government intrusions and fiscal insanity.

I think it's a bit silly to support a party on the off chance that they will someday "remember" to support the ideology you like. I used to support the Democrats for that reason, and look where it's gotten me: the Dems have moved ever farther toward wingnuttery, and seem dedicated to being RepublicansLite. Learn from my mistakes! :D

Apologies, bottle, for my rudeness, I thought you were pantless.

I am.

Oh, you mean you thought I was Teh_Pantless_Hero. No worries, then. :D


Still, it is not worthwhile to go into the ideology of the Republican party. I believe we all - well, those of us in the US - are aware of what it is.

Ahh, but I'm not asking about the ideology of the Republican party. Their ideology is plain for anybody to see. I'm curious about your ideology, and why you think the Republicans support it.

So far you've mentioned interest in minimal government and fiscal conservativism (I think). Neither of those are reflected in the Republican party's current agenda. However, you continue to say that they have an "ideology" that you support, so I'm trying to figure out what that "ideology" may be and why it outweighs the other problems with supporting the Repubs.


But, I do not deny that it is rarely followed by those who claim adherence.
Yeah, in politics it's usually better to watch what they do than what they say they'll do. I tend to just tune politicians out when they talk about their beliefs and stances, and content myself with looking at their records.

Then what taxes are necessary?

Couldn't you read? I posted it already and you even quoted me.

Here, again;

Article I, Section 8 of the US Constitution.

Republicans don't believe in funding education, healthcare, or any other social system?

Not at the federal level.

This is what states are for.

If these issues are so all-fired important, get an amendment ratified that provides for them. Otherwise, scrap'em

Unfortunately, I must.

But, the monies derived therefrom must be apportioned among only those items enumerated by Article I, Section 8 of the US Constitution.

So you then insist the Constitution is a static document and ignore, or are ignorant of, the number of developments that have come across in the past 200 years?

Couldn't you read? I posted it already and you even quoted me.

Here, again;

Article I, Section 8 of the US Constitution.

...

If these issues are so all-fired important, get an amendment ratified that provides for them. Otherwise, scrap'em
Out of curiosity:

If such an amendment was ratified, would you then support funding these issues at the federal level?

Couldn't you read? I posted it already and you even quoted me.

Here, again;

Article I, Section 8 of the US Constitution.



Not at the federal level.

This is what states are for.

If these issues are so all-fired important, get an amendment ratified that provides for them. Otherwise, scrap'em[
Perhaps you haven't seen the state of our "education" system. ITS TOTAL SHIT. As the "richest nation in the world", we ought to be able to do *better* than this.

I dunno, because I'm a curious little monkey and it might entertain you to play around with me a bit?

To cut it to the quick, the Republican ideology, as I see it, is smaller government, fiscal responsibility and social conservatism.

Yeah, the current crop of Republicans botched it 3 for 3. But, I do not see democrats as being an improvement.

Where the Republicans went, the democrats would run them over to exceed.

The sad fact is that Republicans are not a party that supports small government or fiscal responsibility any more. Yes, they once espoused that ideology, but so what? Their deeds didn't live up to their claims even when that was their main campaign thrust, and now they aren't even really pretending to support that ideology any more. They are open about advocating more government intrusions and fiscal insanity.

This seems true. I just hope this '06 loss will slap them back into place and tehy learn from this.

I think it's a bit silly to support a party on the off chance that they will someday "remember" to support the ideology you like.

So, I should back a party that I believe is worse?

No.

I do what I currently do, fight from within to attempt to swing the party back in line with its ideals.

Perhaps you haven't seen the state of our "education" system. ITS TOTAL SHIT. As the "richest nation in the world", we ought to be able to do *better* then this.

Proof of our terrible education system, my friends... Sad, ironic proof...

Not to mention that the two largest 'third parties' are continually being repressed by the Democratic and Republican parties. Democrats and Republicans seem to believe basically the same things at this point.

Most people I know who vote democrat are in reality just voting 'not republican'. Vote for the greater good, not for the lesser evil.

Perhaps you haven't seen the state of our "education" system. ITS TOTAL SHIT. As the "richest nation in the world", we ought to be able to do *better* then this.

Whenever someone says the US education system is "total shit," I have to ask for specifics. I think the public education system is underfunded to an extent that should embarrass the country, and that there is far too much "teaching to the tests" going on. What do you think is wrong?

WRONG. The democrats won because they represent what americans want, not what a bunch of fringers and lobbyists want.

So, I should back a party that I believe is worse?

No.

I do what I currently do, fight from within to attempt to swing the party back in line with its ideals.
That's a good point. If you honestly think the Dems are going to do a worse job at advancing your ideology, it makes sense to still vote Republican in the hopes of swinging the party back your way.

Personally, I think the Dems are going to be better about fiscal responsibility and Constitutional issues than the Republicans, at least in the short term. The social conservativism thing is (in my opinion) just a distraction that neither party really cares about or has ever cared about, it's just pandering to get votes. I'm probably going to continue voting for Dems for now, as the lesser of the evils, but I'm more than willing to jump ship the moment a better option presents itself.

So you then insist the Constitution is a static document

You betcha.

Ever read the Constitution?

Check out Article VI, Section 2 sometime.

and ignore, or are ignorant of, the number of developments that have come across in the past 200 years?

While you're at it, check out Article V, too.

Not to mention that the two largest 'third parties' are continually being repressed by the Democratic and Republican parties. Democrats and Republicans seem to believe basically the same things at this point.

Most people I know who vote democrat are in reality just voting 'not republican'. Vote for the greater good, not for the lesser evil.

That's all well and good and idealistic, but it's not practical.

WRONG. The democrats won because they represent what americans want, not what a bunch of fringers and lobbyists want.

...you obviously haven't taken a look at our system of "Democracy". We've got two parties who're more/less the same, and a bunch of idiots for voters. Personally, we should look at Switzerland for a true system of Democracy. Its called "Direct Democracy". Actual *Citizens* can vote on the laws and such...not this representive bullshit. Feh. >_<...

Democrats and Republicans seem to believe basically the same things at this point.

Absolute nonsense. So sick of this "they're the same thing!" rhettoric.

Go look at Nancy Pelosi and Denis Hastert.

Go compare Kennedy and Santorum.

Tell me they're the same.

Most people I know who vote democrat are in reality just voting 'not republican'. Vote for the greater good, not for the lesser evil.
Sadly, I don't feel I have the option of "voting for the greater good." In the system we have, the harsh reality is that I can choose between having an extreme right-wing radical in power, or a slightly less radical right-winger in power. I don't have the option of voting for any left wingers, since America doesn't really have any of them to speak of, and the "moderates" we've got are politically ineffective.

My goal for the time being is to slow the rate at which my government destroys my country and strips away my rights, in the hopes that an actual progressive power base will become viable in the future.

The democratic candidates were what americans want. Conservative to moderate , NOT wing nuts or right wing fundementalist . The country as a whole took a huge step back towards the center from the right .
THANK GOD or Odin or your lucky stars...no more right vs left congress . We got a congress that should not only work well toghether but should also moderate some of the crap that beens going on since 1994 ...no more freakin ID being taught as a subject and laws being proposed to keep dead people alive .

Bush got spanked .


And BTW mr poster above me...Vermont elected a socialist .;)

Absolute nonsense. So sick of this "they're the same thing!" rhettoric.

Go look at Nancy Pelosi and Denis Hastert.

Go compare Kennedy and Santorum.

Tell me they're the same.
Compare Harold Ford Jr. and Bob Corker for me please..

Out of curiosity:

If such an amendment was ratified, would you then support funding these issues at the federal level?

Define "support."

I would oppose them and write my elected officials to likewise oppose them, but, if such an amendment were ratified, I would have to accept it as the Supreme Law of the land.

My reasons for my opposition is that social affairs are better handled at the state level.


It's cheaper.
It's more efficient.
It's more relevant.


I live in D/FW, Texas. A long time ago, I worked for a warehouse that needed new racks. The manufacturer of the racks shared a wall with our warehouse. Were those racks just moved the few hundred feet to our warehouse?

No.

They had to be shipped to the manufacturer's North Carolina distributor first, then shipped back to us.

About 3,000 miles to save a few hundred feet.

Federal social programs are the same. Money taken from a state winds its way to DC - suffering all the bureaucratic leeching along the way - hits DC, where it suffers further leeching, and then winds its way back to the state at a greatly reduced level.

Further, who wants a federal government that can't be trusted with anything else, to be trusted with our health and social welfare?

Perhaps you haven't seen the state of our "education" system. ITS TOTAL SHIT. As the "richest nation in the world", we ought to be able to do *better* than this.

And, we have a FEDERAL Department of Education, don't we?

Compare Harold Ford Jr. and Bob Corker for me please..

Point being? Democratic party has always been a "big tent" party. Sure you're going to get those to the right, and those to left. Even the republicans have moderate leaning folks.

To say they're "all the same" is ludicrus. Sure both parties will have folks looking a lot alike in the middle, but will also have opposite ends to the spectrum.

Define "support."

I would oppose them and write my elected officials to likewise oppose them, but, if such an amendment were ratified, I would have to accept it as the Supreme Law of the land.

My reasons for my opposition is that social affairs are better handled at the state level.


It's cheaper.
It's more efficient.
It's more relevant.


I live in D/FW, Texas. A long time ago, I worked for a warehouse that needed new racks. The manufacturer of the racks shared a wall with our warehouse. Were those racks just moved the few hundred feet to our warehouse?

No.

They had to be shipped to the manufacturer's North Carolina distributor first, then shipped back to us.

About 3,000 miles to save a few hundred feet.

Federal social programs are the same. Money taken from a state winds its way to DC - suffering all the bureaucratic leeching along the way - hits DC, where it suffers further leeching, and then winds its way back to the state at a greatly reduced level.

Further, who wants a federal government that can't be trusted with anything else, to be trusted with our health and social welfare?
Gotcha. I just wanted to clarify what you were saying. It sounded at first like you were saying that your opposition to federal funding for such issues is based exclusively on whether or not the Constitution directs such funds to exist.

I kind of figured that you didn't actually work that way, but I've encountered people around here who believed some things that really sent me for a loop...I thought it would be best to check. ;)

That's a good point. If you honestly think the Dems are going to do a worse job at advancing your ideology, it makes sense to still vote Republican in the hopes of swinging the party back your way.

More than that.

I go - when I can - to the conventions and do my best to enact the platforms I believe in.

And, we have a FEDERAL Department of Education, don't we?
To be fair, having a nominal Department of Education isn't going to be sufficient. You can't just create a Department, refuse to fund it, and then blame the Department for all the resulting failures.

To cut it to the quick, the Republican ideology, as I see it, is smaller government, fiscal responsibility and social conservatism.

That hasn't been the Republican ideology since before Reagan.

And, we have a FEDERAL Department of Education, don't we?

Yeah...underfunded. Due to Monkeyboy and his "War on Terorr" BS.

More than that.

I go - when I can - to the conventions and do my best to enact the platforms I believe in.
Rock on.

Even if I don't happen to agree with some of your ideals (which I'm guessing I don't, given your support of "social conservativism"), I have a lot of respect for people who fully embrace their role in the political process. I'm depressed by how few Americans take their responsibilities as citizens seriously.

Hell, most people don't even normally bother to VOTE, and that's like the bare freaking minimum.

Federal social programs are the same. Money taken from a state winds its way to DC - suffering all the bureaucratic leeching along the way - hits DC, where it suffers further leeching, and then winds its way back to the state at a greatly reduced level.

Further, who wants a federal government that can't be trusted with anything else, to be trusted with our health and social welfare?
This is all fine and dandy.. if you hold the idiotic assumption that the state governments can handle it any better.

To be fair, having a nominal Department of Education isn't going to be sufficient. You can't just create a Department, refuse to fund it, and then blame the Department for all the resulting failures.

Sure you can, Bottle. Haven't the R's been doing that for years? Think of the Children Not Left Behind!

...about people who don't vote?

They don't care.

I am not American and so I have absolutely no stake in this at all. A way earlier post derided both of your parties for not caring about people who don't vote...

...I wouldn't lose too much (any) sleep worrying about people who don't vote. It's not like they matter anyway.

I live in D/FW, Texas.

Somehow, that doesn't surprise me in the least. I think that stems from the fact that Dallas has way too many "social conservatives".

Stay the fuck away from my rights. I've just about had it with your ilk shoving a perverted form of Christianity down my throat for the past twelve years (started happening to me when I was six; I'm now eighteen).

...Personally, we should look at Switzerland for a true system of Democracy. Its called "Direct Democracy". Actual *Citizens* can vote on the laws and such...not this representive bullshit. Feh. >_<...

Direct democracy would be impossible for a nation as massive as the USA.

Plus that wouldn't resolve the problem that most western states are experienceing - apathy (much to the politicians and corporate fat cats delight).

I'm still going for the Coup...

but merely as a suggestion as an outsider.

The problem with the US is that Southeners are aloud to vote. I myself live in TN, and...please take that right away from us. I'm begging you now..

The problem with the US is that Southeners are aloud to vote. I myself live in TN, and...please take that right away from us. I'm begging you now..

Hey pal, Texas isn't much better. :p

Direct democracy would be impossible for a nation as massive as the USA.

*Shudder* I loath the idea of direct democracy. There are many things that should never be subject to a vote. This recent election highlights several lovely examples, such as how civil rights should never be put to a popular vote because it is often very popular to violate other people's civil rights.

Hey pal, Texas isn't much better. :p
I know this...remove it from everyone from Kentucky and below. *Please*.

The problem with the US is that Southeners are aloud to vote. I myself live in TN, and...please take that right away from us. I'm begging you now..

Hey pal, Texas isn't much better. :p

One does sometimes wonder why such a fuss was made when y'all tried to leave the Union back in the Day.

*Shudder* I loath the idea of direct democracy. There are many things that should never be subject to a vote. This recent election highlights several lovely examples, such as how civil rights should never be put to a popular vote because it is often very popular to violate other people's civil rights.

So, you and I agree completely on the "voting for civil rights" issue.

I for one think that civil rights should be complete and unhindered, unable to be discounted for any reason whatsoever. And if a minority is "upset", well... Fuck them. There wasn't, and ever should be, any right to oppress others.

Personally, we should look at Switzerland for a true system of Democracy. Its called "Direct Democracy". Actual *Citizens* can vote on the laws and such...not this representive bullshit. Feh. >_<...

And, the states would lose their representation, even more than they did when the Senate became a popular vote.

Do you not know what the name of this nation is?

The United States of America.

Not, America.

We are a cooperative collection of sovereign states, not a single entity.

One does sometimes wonder why such a fuss was made when y'all tried to leave the Union back in the Day.

If the South leaves it again...I'm moving to bloody Alaska. Screw all these baptist and religious freaks. >_<..thats another thing. Remove all traces of "Religion" from politics goddamn it.

One does sometimes wonder why such a fuss was made when y'all tried to leave the Union back in the Day.

For starters, I've never said "y'all", as I grew up in a small port town among and amongst many New Englanders and Midwesterners. As a (rather wonderful) consequence, I speak with an amalgamation of accents ranging from Minnesota to Massachusetts, with not even a hint of "southern-ness" in me. Sorry, but I feel that I have to clarify this whenever I say where I'm from, because the stereotypical image always seems to go in.

Well, I can see why there was for political reasons, but as for civil reasons, Texas was one of the most backward and racist states in the country in those days. It's gotten much better now (see Austin, Houston, and Corpus Christi), but back then, why bother?

And, the states would lose their representation, even more than they did when the Senate became a popular vote.

Do you not know what the name of this nation is?

The United States of America.

Not, America.

We are a cooperative collection of sovereign states, not a single entity.
Actually, the American Civil War radically changed perceptions about this.

Before the Civil War, it was said that "The United States are..." Since the Civil War, we say that "The United States is..."

Considering how interdependent and intertwined the states are, I don't think it's really sound to view them as sovereign and individual any more. The US may not be one cohesive entity, but we're far more divided based on cultural communities than we are by state borders.

One does sometimes wonder why such a fuss was made when y'all tried to leave the Union back in the Day.
They keep saying that the South will rise again. And I'm all like, "Cool! When? I'll bake a cake!"

Gotcha. I just wanted to clarify what you were saying. It sounded at first like you were saying that your opposition to federal funding for such issues is based exclusively on whether or not the Constitution directs such funds to exist.

More that the Constitution does not direct the program using the funds to exist.

At the federal level.

A state can have all the social programs it likes.


Minimum wage
Healthcare
Welfare
Chicken in every pot, etc.


But, the feds may not.

However, if the Constitution were amended to allow the program, I might still oppose it in principle, but I would have to support it in law.

To be fair, having a nominal Department of Education isn't going to be sufficient. You can't just create a Department, refuse to fund it, and then blame the Department for all the resulting failures.

I might accept a federal department that would define national goals for education, but it would be up to the states to decide how to enact legislation to effect these goals.

But, I'd have to think on that. Even that sort of department may not be in keeping with the tenets of the Constitution.

That hasn't been the Republican ideology since before Reagan.

I have my work cut out for me, don't I?

Yeah...underfunded.

It should be abolished.

It should be abolished.

How about this. I'll accept state-funded Education as long as there's a line in there, stating: You cannot teach *"Religious Science".

*Excuse our use of oxymoron.

Please forgive my ignorance - i'm not an expert on the USA political system - but are there only 2 parties to choose from?????????????/:confused:

Why is this?

Is it due to the power within Congress and the Senate required?

I think USA needs more parties, then you can get coalition governments and enter stalemates like Germany.

Here in Britain we are still kinda lodged between the Tories and Labour, the Liberal Democrats are a close third and then there are a few small parties (that have no chance in hell of getting into power) but its taken so long to develop a third major party.

I hope things get better soom though

Vorlich, the difference is in the structure of how we run our elections. All seats are single races. There is no proportional representation, transferred voting, or multi-seat constituencies. The effect is that new parties don't get any seats the first time they run -- and usually can't survive that failure. A few small parties stick it out over the long term.

The libertarian party, for example, regularly gets 3 - 10% of the vote in various elections, but has virtually no elected officials. In the German system, they would hold the balance of power between the main parties. (A side note here: I once voted for a Libertarian who won the glorious post of "county commissioner of weights and measures." His campaign promise was to abolish the post. He succeeded. He's no longer in office. Some party elected officials seem to be self-liquidating!)

There is a benefit to this. Despite the fact that the media portrays some huge ideological struggle between the parties, they are only loosely ideological. Rather, they are coalitions of groups that are ideological and willing to work with the other groups. The temptation to try to pull in the other party's coalition members tends to pull the parties towards more moderate public images.

So, the Republicans are currently a coalition of religious conservatives, business-minded people (the "establishment" or "Rockefeller" republicans), and small-government libertarians (think liberals in the Europeans sense). The Democracts are a coalition of race-based groups, unions (mainly public sector), mild socialists ("liberals" in the American sense), and environmentalists. Nixon's huge play was to bring the religious conservatives into the Republican party through his "Southern Strategy." Reagan's great move was to create the appearance of an ideology binding the Republican coalition together. Clinton's great move was to appeal to the business-minded group. I'd say Carter was a Watergate fluke, but he appealed to the religious conservatives. Bush senior stayed within his own coalition, really. Outside of the wake of 9/11, Bush junior has succeeded only within his own coalition.

This patterm plays itself out regularly. When either party becomes successful enough to dominate, some portion of it becomes ignored and defects to the other party. Up until last night, for example, religious conservatives were ascendant in the Republican party, to the point that the libertarian wing was extremely unenthused (due mainly to growing federal spending on things like the Medicare prescription drug program, the level of pork-barrel spending in recent budgets, the perception that the tax system has been turned into a subsidy system, etc.). The walloping that the religious conservatives received last night will probably allow the libertarian wing to influence the party more. McCain seems to be aligning himself with that wing. In an interview of him that I saw last night, he reiterated the libertarian wing's main complaints. It will be an uphill battle for him on that wing, since most libertarians despise the campaign finance laws named after him as a infringement of free speech.

That's probably more than you wanted to hear, but there it is.

Even if I don't happen to agree with some of your ideals (which I'm guessing I don't, given your support of "social conservativism"), I have a lot of respect for people who fully embrace their role in the political process.

Well, my father wrote speeches for John Chafee in his run for Rhode Island governor - I think he wrote some, also, after he won. And, my mother's side has an ex-Rhode Island Secretary of State in it. Currently, my mother is a precinct chairman and she's my in to the conventions, when I can make it.

I'm depressed by how few Americans take their responsibilities as citizens seriously.

As am I. People died to provide this great nation and it is taken for granted.

And, the states would lose their representation, even more than they did when the Senate became a popular vote.

Do you not know what the name of this nation is?

The United States of America.

Not, America.

We are a cooperative collection of sovereign states, not a single entity.

Sovereign states? Really?

Did Florida fight in World War II?

Is it the border between Mexico and Texas?

Can New York decide it doesn't want to be in that "cooperative collection" like say...Poland can decide to leave the EU?

No, no, and no.

The United States is one nation, a federalist nation, but one nation overall. If what you say was true, then the fact that billions of dollars of FEDERAL money that poured into the aftermath of Katrina and 9/11 was effectively the taxpayers of one sovereign state giving money to another sovereign state.

And speaking as a taxpayer in one state, who pays taxes to the federal government which in turn gets spread out among the other 49 states, since we are all sovereign, and not interconnected by anything more than cooperative collection, I want my money back.

This is all fine and dandy.. if you hold the idiotic assumption that the state governments can handle it any better.

So, if the States are as equal to the task as the feds, you'd still prefer the monies to go to DC?

Got it...

Idiocy, eh?

Yup, I see it, but proabably not where you put it.

Somehow, that doesn't surprise me in the least. I think that stems from the fact that Dallas has way too many "social conservatives".

Dallas?

HAHAHA!

Yeah, right.

You must not know much of Dallas politics. Dallas is blue as it gets.

Stay the fuck away from my rights. I've just about had it with your ilk shoving a perverted form of Christianity down my throat for the past twelve years (started happening to me when I was six; I'm now eighteen).

*yawn*

Actually, the American Civil War radically changed perceptions about this.

Yes, it did. I would welcome the perceptions to return.

Considering how interdependent and intertwined the states are, I don't think it's really sound to view them as sovereign and individual any more. The US may not be one cohesive entity, but we're far more divided based on cultural communities than we are by state borders.

In my ideal world, the state borders would be made more relevant. A big first step would be a repeal of the 17th Amendment.

How about this. I'll accept state-funded Education as long as there's a line in there, stating: You cannot teach *"Religious Science".

There is no such thing as "religious science." How could that which does not exist be taught?

But, that aside, if a state did teach something you did not agree with, you could launch a movement to remove it - having a far greater voice in state elections than federal - or, move.

There is no such thing as "religious science." How could that which does not exist be taught?

But, that aside, if a state did teach something you did not agree with, you could launch a movement to remove it - having a far greater voice in state elections than federal - or, move.

I was thinking more along the lines of "Intellegent Design"...but hey, you take that part out and I'd be rather happy. >_<...goddamn major western religion. Wicca/Paganism ftw.

Please forgive my ignorance - i'm not an expert on the USA political system - but are there only 2 parties to choose from?????????????/:confused:

Why is this?

Is it due to the power within Congress and the Senate required?

I think USA needs more parties, then you can get coalition governments and enter stalemates like Germany.

Here in Britain we are still kinda lodged between the Tories and Labour, the Liberal Democrats are a close third and then there are a few small parties (that have no chance in hell of getting into power) but its taken so long to develop a third major party.

I hope things get better soom though

Actually, it has to do with our "first-past-the-post" system. Most other democracies have a sort of percentage system.

Meaning, in the US whoever gets more votes, wins...end of story. In most other democracies, as long as you win so many percent of the vote, you get at least one seat in Congress.

In our system there is also a problem of money and getting noticed and having the media notice you.

There are other small reasons and conspiracy reasons but these are the two main institutional reasons for our strange system.

Sovereign states? Really?

Really.

Did Florida fight in World War II?

Foreign policy is the purview of the federal government as assigned by the US Constitution.

Is it the border between Mexico and Texas?

Part of it. That's why Gov. Perry set up a website so that Texas citizens can participate and watch parts of the border and report suspicious activity to the authorities.

Can New York decide it doesn't want to be in that "cooperative collection" like say...Poland can decide to leave the EU?

I believe it can. Nowhere does the Constitution deny this right. In fact, the Ninth Amendment affirms it.

No, no, and no.

Actually, No, yes and yes.

The United States is one nation, a federalist nation, but one nation overall. If what you say was true, then the fact that billions of dollars of FEDERAL money that poured into the aftermath of Katrina and 9/11 was effectively the taxpayers of one sovereign state giving money to another sovereign state.

And?

And speaking as a taxpayer in one state, who pays taxes to the federal government which in turn gets spread out among the other 49 states, since we are all sovereign, and not interconnected by anything more than cooperative collection, I want my money back.

Sorry, that'd be nice and I'd like that, too, but the money's gone. Best that can be hoped for is no more money is taken.

For those programs not specifically authorized by Article I, Section 8.

I was thinking more along the lines of "Intellegent Design"...but hey, you take that part out and I'd be rather happy. >_<...* major western religion. Wicca/Paganism ftw.

Ah.

Well, now that you've come clean, I understand.

Then, if you don't like ID, don't vote for it in YOUR state.

If it still passes, do what you can to get it repealed or move to another state.

Ah.

Well, now that you've come clean, I understand.

Then, if you don't like ID, don't vote for it in YOUR state.

If it still passes, do what you can to get it repealed or move to another state.
Because ID has no basis in anything other then the "Bible"? There is no proof of god(And transversely, no proof against god). But still...it shouldn't be taught. It is *not* a science. Personally, I believe that humans created god, because we don't have the collective stomach to think there's nothing after this life.

Yes, it did. I would welcome the perceptions to return.

In my ideal world, the state borders would be made more relevant. A big first step would be a repeal of the 17th Amendment.
Interesting. I haven't honestly given this subject much thought, since I believe there is exactly zero chance that any of that will ever come to pass.

Because ID has no basis in anything other then the "Bible"? There is no proof of god(And transversely, no proof against god). But still...it shouldn't be taught. It is *not* a science. Personally, I believe that humans created god, because we don't have the collective stomach to think there's nothing after this life.

See, that's the whole idea behind freedom.

Sometimes, someone will do something you don't like.

You would prefer controlling the other and dictating what they may do.

I prefer the one having the choice and following the will of its population.

So, if the great state of North Weebauken wants to have ID taught in its schools, the citizens of North Weebauken can vote on it and decide, without a dictator arbitrarily denying them the right to choose, because they do not comport to his personal beliefs.

If you are a citizen of North Weebauken, you can get involved in the process and voice your opposition.

If you are not, you have no business sticking your nose in their affairs.

Interesting. I haven't honestly given this subject much thought, since I believe there is exactly zero chance that any of that will ever come to pass.

And, because you think so - joined by many others - it will never come to pass.

The States fought long and hard to secure representation in the federal government; it was embodied in the Senate. I can't fathom what made the states agree to give up that representation.

With the 17th Amendment, we may as well abolish the Senate. All they have become is a collection of "at large" representatives.

And, because you think so - joined by many others - it will never come to pass.

Ahh, democracy. The system works!

;)

Ahh, democracy. The system works!

;)

It may work, but it sometimes does stupid things.

And, why we're stuck with a 16th Amendment...

Use the sticky threads. Closed.