Ease Up, O'Haters

Viewing 15 posts - 1 through 15 (of 60 total)
  • Author
    Posts
  • #3073
    duxrule
    Participant

    Give that right hand a rest, since the “wave” was actually more of a ripple:

    GOP wave was smaller than it appeared
    http://www.thenewstribune.com/2014/11/12/3484235/gop-wave-was-smaller-than-it-appeared.html?sp=/99/447/

    #3079
    jerry1949
    Spectator

    8 or 9 Sentate seats flipped. 12 to 15 more seats added to the House. 3 governorships added. Republican state legislatures at levels not seen for a hundred years.

    And that was just a little rubber ducky dropped into the bath tub?

    But call it a “ripple” if that makes it all better now.

    I think I’ll go “envision world peace” for awhile. Maybe that can work too.

    #3080
    duxrule
    Participant

    Glad I can help you to find something productive to do with your time. I guess you skipped over the part about this election being mostly about a minority of old and angry white men getting their way for once. You got one. Good on ya.

    #3081
    edselehr
    Participant

    F&B, what’s the positive conservative message we should take away from these election results? What’s their positive vision of the future – meaning that “No More Obamacare” or something similar doesn’t count.

    #3083
    missing_kskd
    Participant

    That is my question exactly.

    So far, I see the most painful policy visions out there, and they have no appeal for me personally. Not just ideological validation either. I’m talking about value added to my life.

    Dems have some things out there I can point to and express either positive benefit already actualized for me, or I can see a benefit easily in the future without having to cite dubious or well debunked ideas in support.

    There just isn’t much on the table from the GOP to get excited about.

    As an ordinary person, I’m not interested in largely useless fights over wedge issues. Those have political significance, but not a lot of material relevance in my life. I want it better, not to just win, whatever that means ideologically.

    The difference is seeing data driven, fact based policy intended to improve our lives as opposed to ideologically driven policy, assumed to improve our lives.

    The GOP currently is strongly focused on the latter, which isn’t something to get excited about, unless one is all about merely being right, or validating authoritarian rule, neither of which make any sense, unless the data points to some material benefits.

    I very strongly suspect the majority of Americans, who aren’t fixated on these kinds of issues, would strongly identify with the general desire to make it better.

    Dems brought me health care availiability, which freed me to take some risks and advance my career helping to build a little company into a bigger one. Also freed me from being trapped at one where people are corrupt, abusive and incompetent, limiting my future.

    Dems here in Oregon are making pot legal. Great! I can go and have a nice time with friends and not worry so much about that, same as booze. I can also feel the impact of a less strained judicial system more able to focus on meaningful crime.

    Dems are beating back racism, bigotry and theocracy, which I can see in my life in positive and material ways with my peers living happier lives.

    Minimum wage measures did well, and Dems are bringing the wage issues up and are suggesting and implementing things that my kids can benefit from right away, along with peers struggling hard despite working hard.

    Dems have been rational about foreign policy. I don’t like all that I see, but not having a war going on feels better. I stress less, or if I do, it’s meaningful.

    I could go on, but the real message in this election isn’t that the GOP is somehow validated. The same painful, failed, not fact based, not data driven policy vision favoring oligarchs and social regressives is out there, unchanged. Not good enough.

    No, the real message is that Dems need to stand on their wind more strongly and they could really use some more relevant dialog in the party leadership so that voters can see positive policy vision ideas as well as high impact wins more clearly. Obama did well connecting to younger voters. The party overall isn’t paying attention.

    In general, voting for things and people makes a lot more sense than does the negative voting against backed by fear and misinformation.

    Freedom from fear and shame overall is a very positive and practical message we should be experiencing more of. Life is short man. Who has time for that shit?

    To be fair, there are valid fears and shames, and we should give those consideration, but only in tandem with solution visions that improve lives, backed by data and facts we know are peer reviewed, valid and being studied and improved.

    #3098
    Alfredo_T
    Participant

    I think that the people who should be ashamed now are those who didn’t bother to vote. The original article states that the recent election had the lowest turnout of any midterm election since 1942.

    #3102
    duxrule
    Participant

    +1 to Fredo. Voting isn’t just a privilege, it’s an obligation and a duty as a citizen. I don’t miss ANY elections, from President down to the most minor school issue.

    #3105
    jerry1949
    Spectator

    I think we could keep the system more honest if those who were dependent upon the government were not permitted to vote. It’s too tempting to vote for benefits, which is no different than picking someone’s pockets, and too easy to establish a dependent class.

    #3106
    duxrule
    Participant

    “I think we could keep the system more honest if those who were dependent upon the government were not permitted to vote.”

    So, you’re saying that all American citizens over the age of 65 shouldn’t be able to vote, or just the ones that are wealthy enough not to need Medicare?

    #3109
    skeptical
    Participant

    F&B sez: “I think we could keep the system more honest if those who were dependent upon the government were not permitted to vote.”

    I wonder what your Pope would say about that? He’ll take away your wafer privileges at the very least.

    #3113
    NoParty
    Participant

    F&B said>>>
    I think we could keep the system more honest if those who were dependent upon the government were not permitted to vote.

    Then the CONs would be fucked. The “MAJORITY” of people dependent on the Government are “WHIT” people bud! Shotting yourself in the foot isn’t good.

    #3128
    missing_kskd
    Participant

    Well the truth comes out F&B!

    Just like most of the Republican party, you would much prefer the poors get shut out of Democracy.

    Does it hurt to be that selfish?

    Now, let’s put voter fraud on the list of bull shit, well debunked, and be honest about voter discrimination going forward shall we?

    #3134
    edselehr
    Participant

    Business owners are dependent on government for public roads to transport their goods and to move their employees to and from work, the military for protecting American commercial interests overseas, and federal regulations that manage natural resources so that there is sustainable access to raw materials.

    That’s what you were referring to F&B, right? 🙂

    #3136
    Andy Brown
    Participant

    “I think we could keep the system more honest if those who were dependent upon the government were not permitted to vote.”

    Wow. I am speechless. What a truly reckless statement that undermines any credibility you might ever have had on this forum.

    Dux: Not just Medicare. What about SSI, SSD, SS Retirement and Medicaid recipients? What about the U.S. Military? Members of all three branches of the U.S. Government including the FBI, the CIA and all the state employees working on Federally funded projects?

    They all and more are totally dependent on the Government for their existence. Many in the Armed Forces are there because the Private sector would not hire them and they had insufficient net liquid assets to start their own business. Many in the employ of government were hired away from private firms because of their expertise years ago and have no guarantee they could find private employment in a new age of automation, offshoring and downsizing.

    Not to mention how unconstitutional your thought is, F&B, in addition to its rudeness you present further proof that you are an uncaring dweeb of the first order. For you I think it would be better to not contribute and be thought a fool, than to post and remove all doubt.

    #3137
    jerry1949
    Spectator

    There is something to be said about the concept of voting to receive something from someone else:

    “A democracy is always temporary in nature; it simply cannot exist as a permanent form of government. A democracy will continue to exist up until the time that voters discover that they can vote themselves generous gifts from the public treasury. From that moment on, the majority always votes for the candidates who promise the most benefits from the public treasury, with the result that every democracy will finally collapse due to loose fiscal policy, which is always followed by a dictatorship.”

    I reailize what I said is unrealistic. But it would be an interesting thought experiment to see what shape the government would take if those who are earning the money that gets redistributed were in control of to whom and how much should be redistributed.

Viewing 15 posts - 1 through 15 (of 60 total)
  • You must be logged in to reply to this topic.