this is a post that deserves it's own thread. seriously...if we were as pathetic as the left, we'd be blaming other people like they do instead of looking at ourselves.
I didn't say democrats were losers, i said liberals were...winning democrats won because they ran to the right of their republican opponents.
You did call the left "pathetic", and I interpreted that as Democrats. Call me crazy, but hey.
It is truely sad that your perception of American politics is that limited.
Please, stop with the "Democrats platform = Bush sucks!!! They have no real issues!!!" arguement, because you & I both know that it's false. It's pathetic, and a pitiful attempt at trying to downplay the Democratic victory.
Haha..you so smart..me so dumb....jesus...grow up.
I suppose you didn't pay much attenton last night. People were voting based on their displeasure wth W and the war. How else can you explain a Repub incumbent that had a 64% approval rating losing by a large margin...it wasn;t about him...
I have not downplayed the Dem victory at all, I'm just realistic as to why it occurred. They have the power now...they better do something with it.
I've been watching the news on various channels most of the night, and for something that's never getting mentioned, I keep hearing about it a lot.
What we need is a system that removes any doubt, and the demand for it needs to come from both sides. I don't think anyone who pushed for more verifiable elections in 2000 and 2004 are now opposed to the idea.
have you seen hbo's 'hacking democracy'? i just watched that tonight. good god.
if you wanna be a friend of mine
cross the river to the eastside
I've been watching the news on various channels most of the night, and for something that's never getting mentioned, I keep hearing about it a lot.
What we need is a system that removes any doubt, and the demand for it needs to come from both sides. I don't think anyone who pushed for more verifiable elections in 2000 and 2004 are now opposed to the idea.
The same folks who begged for electronic voting systems are the same ones telling us that these systems are losing elections for them. You reap what you sow. Atleast that's what liberals keep telling me.
Except this year of course. Of course.
"Sarcasm: intellect on the offensive"
"What I lack in decorum, I make up for with an absence of tact."
Haha..you so smart..me so dumb....jesus...grow up.
I suppose you didn't pay much attenton last night. People were voting based on their displeasure wth W and the war. How else can you explain a Repub incumbent that had a 64% approval rating losing by a large margin...it wasn;t about him...
I have not downplayed the Dem victory at all, I'm just realistic as to why it occurred. They have the power now...they better do something with it.
not that this is the end all be all, but all the poll results i saw today while calling in sick from work, said that iraq was lowest on the list (out of 4 reasons). corruption was above that.
if you wanna be a friend of mine
cross the river to the eastside
when was the last time someone ran nationally as a liberal and won? My calander has it at 1976. again, american liberalism is dead because they cannot win if they tell you what they believe, and that's pretty embarrassing.
In my opinion, and from my perception, they aren't running right. They're letting the Republicans control the country's perception of liberalism - and that's props to the Republicans, as they basically have the term "liberal" embedded in the common citizen's mind to mean something bad, when it typically isn't, although you may disagree. John Kerry, a horrible candidate, didn't defend himself on that issue - he took the label and didn't say "Yes, I'm a liberal. But do you know what a liberal truely stands for?". He had a horrible campaign, and that's largely due to why he lost, although it wasn't a blowout.
As for the other elections, Ronald Reagan won in 1980 - appealing to both sides, energetic, and what the country needed, especially while running against Jimmy Carter and him being a horrible president and candidate, which nearly anyone would admit. He saught reelection in 1984, and as he was appealing to moderate Democrats, he won in a landslide (note that many of these Reagan Republican/Democrats shun the Bush Administration). This is one example of how whoever nominates the candidate more appealing to the middle will win, as Bill Clinton did in 1992, and again in 1996. As for 2000, Al Gore did, techincally, win the popular vote, as you can't really apply that "liberalism" failed that, as neither side won in that election. Maybe I'm talking in circles, but it makes sense to me. It more has to do with who nominates a candidate that appeals to the center (Reagan, Clinton), and who nominates the more likeable candidate (John Kerry was a horrible candidate).
They all moved to the wrong middle...well...for me.
The repubs lost a bunch of moderate repubs. The dems moved to the middle by embracing God (man that is funny to me), standing up for 2nd amendment rights, etc., etc. Staying away from Gay marriage....basically I'm screwed.
I was hoping for th eRepubs to move towards the center for the past 6 years by stopping th ehate towards gays, giving up the need to carry loaded weapons to show how big your dick is and stopping the madness surrounding the religious right....this sucks.
I actually agree with you there. While I support the second amendment, I think there do need to be checks and regulations to make sure they aren't harming our citizens (a "family value", I guess?), and to accept homosexual marraige, realizing that it's pathetic to debate about that when there are more important issues to be disscussed, and that there is no basis for two homosexuals not to marry, and as I'm indifferent to abortion, I wish it wasn't a big issue, and decides who a lot of people vote vote. However, holding those views, I'm also screwed in modern politics.
The same folks who begged for electronic voting systems are the same ones telling us that these systems are losing elections for them. You reap what you sow. Atleast that's what liberals keep telling me.
Except this year of course. Of course.
I'm sure some liberals did push for it. If the systems are wrong, I hope they're honest.
I never liked the idea of electronic voting. Anything that involves executable programs is in danger of tampering.
And even if vote totals are on the level, the element of distrust is not good for our country.
What was the percentage difference, though? Obviously you're going to have a bigger voter difference between two presidential candidates, because (1) It's a presidential election year, meaning the voter turnout is higher, meaning more votes to count, and (2) it was on a nationwide scale - meaning every citizen of the United States votes, whereas a House seat only has a district.
Common sense to me, maybe not to you.
We've still got time, we're not even in the post-48 hours mark. Stop with your liberals scream voter fraud, you're just embaressing yourself, as you're refusing to admit defeat, much like President Bush now, eh?
It is truely sad that your perception of American politics is that limited.
Please, stop with the "Democrats platform = Bush sucks!!! They have no real issues!!!" arguement, because you & I both know that it's false. It's pathetic, and a pitiful attempt at trying to downplay the Democratic victory.
No no! Let me take this one!
Ok... here goes....
What is the Democratic platform? (There will be purple-hooved unicorns and a woman in the white house before this question ever presents itself with an answer)
"Sarcasm: intellect on the offensive"
"What I lack in decorum, I make up for with an absence of tact."
not that this is the end all be all, but all the poll results i saw today while calling in sick from work, said that iraq was lowest on the list (out of 4 reasons). corruption was above that.
If it was just corruption, dem incumbents would have lost...I think corruption in terms of Iraq was a big issue for voters.
Anyhow, the repub got what they deserved. They coasted to victory...didn;t accomplishe much of what I hoped they would...were running a very unsuccessful war and were unwilling to make any changes. Look at Rummy now...looks like they (the repubs) go the message too late. Perhaps they thought the public was only kidding?
If htey had admitted mistakes, made adjustments, and reached out to eh Dems more often...they's have gotten more done and they still be in power.
And better yet, we, the people, would have gotten a lot more out of the last 12 years and we would get more out of th enext 12 then we'll get. I have very little faith in the upcoming congress...not because they are dems...but because I feel it's the same type of trend that lead to the repubs taking control of congress and I feel the dems will be just as lazy in the lead.
Haha..you so smart..me so dumb....jesus...grow up.
I suppose you didn't pay much attenton last night. People were voting based on their displeasure wth W and the war. How else can you explain a Repub incumbent that had a 64% approval rating losing by a large margin...it wasn;t about him...
I have not downplayed the Dem victory at all, I'm just realistic as to why it occurred. They have the power now...they better do something with it.
Well, that arguement is the main one, and about the only one, I see coming from the right, on a variety of message boards that I look at. I haven't heard one arguement as to why the Democrats shouldn't win, other than that htey have no platform.
Corruption was the number on issue, followed by terrorism, then the economy, and then Iraq. At least those were the latest exit polls on CNN.
Also, don't set your standards too high for progress with in the next two years. While it's a big game, and the Democrats will now be able to do something, they have a two vote lead in the Senate, and that means that most issues could go either way, as it's definitly not a comfortable margin by any means. They will never have the votes to overthrow Bush's veto, and they're still going to have to get his signature of approval for anything they do. Just saying - it's not like they're going to be able to do everything on their list, but it's a start, and we'll all have to compromise, which typically, and should, result in what's best for this great nation.
I'm sure some liberals did push for it. If the systems are wrong, I hope they're honest.
I never liked the idea of electronic voting. Anything that involves executable programs is in danger of tampering.
And even if vote totals are on the level, the element of distrust is not good for our country.
Then suggest a better way to vote?
Or maybe let me suggest to you, there's always the exception, that there aren't really problems with voting in the first place... And probably never really was. But rather an extension of bitterness. Refer to Republican contentness with the results.
"Sarcasm: intellect on the offensive"
"What I lack in decorum, I make up for with an absence of tact."
Or maybe let me suggest to you, there's always the exception, that there aren't really problems with voting in the first place... And probably never really was. But rather an extension of bitterness. Refer to Republican contentness with the results.
I mentioned that exception in my post.
It's not my job to give up my distrust. It's my public officials' job to assuage it.
I hope and pray that this opportunity is not squandered. Something good better come out of this.
I think both parties will be working towards the presidential election in a couple of years. They will try very hard to find a resolution to Iraq and Afghanistan, Israel/Palestine (just to name a couple of issues) and be able to claim that it is their policies (dem or repub) that enabled a favourable outcome. I'm hoping that, with both parties vying for the elections, they will do their upmost to 'right the wrongs' and get things on track to show their party at their best, ready for 2008.
That's what I had your post pegged as, but just making sure.
I've stated what you just did in other threads. That's exactly what happend here. By the numbers, there was no difference between Webb and Allen. Allen had an R beside his name at the wrong time. Once again, I think it inherently odd that these "centrist" Democrats will be giving us Pelosi and Ried as their leadership.
Just had to comment. What about centrist republicans giving the world Bush and his crowd. Isn't that just the same?
I think you guys have too few parties, quite frankly. Norway have 3 parties in the centre comprising a good 15 % of the votes (varying of course), and two major wing parties on either side. The wings always have to go through at least one of the centrist parties to get control of government. So right now, we have the red/green, with the two left-wing parties, hooking up with the Centre party (former farmer's party) to get control over our "congress".
So I think you should try fostering several other parties, that would better represent where the country stands. In your case, getting democrat light and republican light parties in the centre would be a start, with each of them having separate platforms and policies.
But that's me. I'm just glad I'm not stuck with two options, and one-man-winner-takes-all districts.
Peace
Dan
"YOU [humans] NEED TO BELIEVE IN THINGS THAT AREN'T TRUE. HOW ELSE CAN THEY BECOME?" - Death
"Every judgment teeters on the brink of error. To claim absolute knowledge is to become monstrous. Knowledge is an unending adventure at the edge of uncertainty." - Frank Herbert, Dune, 1965
Look at California with Schwarzenegger, not your typical Republican, isn't he?
In any case, it depends on reading correctly the electorate mood in order to win. Polarising issues did not yield political success this time round for Rove's political strategy.
I believe democracy is fake..an ilusion..but democrats are so much better than repubicans. Good job americans...(heh, that must be the first time I wrote good job and USA in the same sentence, no offence).
The worst enemies of music? Money and Mathematics. Combined with music, they both do the exact opposite of what they're supposed to do. Money makes music cheap, mathematics makes it stupid and predictable.
____
Zagreb 2006/ Munich 2007/ Venice 2007/ Berlin 2009 / Venice 2010 / 2 x Berlin 2012 / Stockholm 2012 / Milan 2014 / Trieste 2014 / Vienna 2014 / Florence (EV) 2019 / Padova 2018 / Prague 2018 / Imola 2022 / Budapest 2022 / Vienna 2022 / Prague 2022
I believe democracy is fake..an ilusion..but democrats are so much better than repubicans. Good job americans...(heh, that must be the first time I wrote good job and USA in the same sentence, no offence).
Why would we take offense? You're from Slovania afterall, no offense.
"I'll use the magic word - let's just shut the fuck up, please." EV, 04/13/08
I think both parties will be working towards the presidential election in a couple of years. They will try very hard to find a resolution to Iraq and Afghanistan, Israel/Palestine (just to name a couple of issues) and be able to claim that it is their policies (dem or repub) that enabled a favourable outcome. I'm hoping that, with both parties vying for the elections, they will do their upmost to 'right the wrongs' and get things on track to show their party at their best, ready for 2008.
not that this is the end all be all, but all the poll results i saw today while calling in sick from work, said that iraq was lowest on the list (out of 4 reasons). corruption was above that.
Not that 1 article is the "be all, end all"...but it certainly is trying to make th esame point I did the other day.
Even mentions the Rhode Island race I refered to.
Well sure it mentions the RI race, but then you could just easily put the TN race on the table saying it wasn't W and the war (because of what they said in the article). It doesn't seem so simple. It seems that people had a handful of different reasons, but there was an overall desire for change. Electing democrat majorities to the house and senate is one way of going about that.
if you wanna be a friend of mine
cross the river to the eastside
Comments
You did call the left "pathetic", and I interpreted that as Democrats. Call me crazy, but hey.
Madison Square Garden 6/25/08
Haha..you so smart..me so dumb....jesus...grow up.
I suppose you didn't pay much attenton last night. People were voting based on their displeasure wth W and the war. How else can you explain a Repub incumbent that had a 64% approval rating losing by a large margin...it wasn;t about him...
I have not downplayed the Dem victory at all, I'm just realistic as to why it occurred. They have the power now...they better do something with it.
have you seen hbo's 'hacking democracy'? i just watched that tonight. good god.
cross the river to the eastside
The same folks who begged for electronic voting systems are the same ones telling us that these systems are losing elections for them. You reap what you sow. Atleast that's what liberals keep telling me.
Except this year of course. Of course.
"What I lack in decorum, I make up for with an absence of tact."
Camden 5-28-06
Washington, D.C. 6-22-08
not that this is the end all be all, but all the poll results i saw today while calling in sick from work, said that iraq was lowest on the list (out of 4 reasons). corruption was above that.
cross the river to the eastside
Thank god our side was able to use the system this time. And our friends in the media will rightly keep it quite.
Still, we should dismantle it. Kinda like nukes. It's too dangerous in the wrong hands.
In my opinion, and from my perception, they aren't running right. They're letting the Republicans control the country's perception of liberalism - and that's props to the Republicans, as they basically have the term "liberal" embedded in the common citizen's mind to mean something bad, when it typically isn't, although you may disagree. John Kerry, a horrible candidate, didn't defend himself on that issue - he took the label and didn't say "Yes, I'm a liberal. But do you know what a liberal truely stands for?". He had a horrible campaign, and that's largely due to why he lost, although it wasn't a blowout.
As for the other elections, Ronald Reagan won in 1980 - appealing to both sides, energetic, and what the country needed, especially while running against Jimmy Carter and him being a horrible president and candidate, which nearly anyone would admit. He saught reelection in 1984, and as he was appealing to moderate Democrats, he won in a landslide (note that many of these Reagan Republican/Democrats shun the Bush Administration). This is one example of how whoever nominates the candidate more appealing to the middle will win, as Bill Clinton did in 1992, and again in 1996. As for 2000, Al Gore did, techincally, win the popular vote, as you can't really apply that "liberalism" failed that, as neither side won in that election. Maybe I'm talking in circles, but it makes sense to me. It more has to do with who nominates a candidate that appeals to the center (Reagan, Clinton), and who nominates the more likeable candidate (John Kerry was a horrible candidate).
Madison Square Garden 6/25/08
I actually agree with you there. While I support the second amendment, I think there do need to be checks and regulations to make sure they aren't harming our citizens (a "family value", I guess?), and to accept homosexual marraige, realizing that it's pathetic to debate about that when there are more important issues to be disscussed, and that there is no basis for two homosexuals not to marry, and as I'm indifferent to abortion, I wish it wasn't a big issue, and decides who a lot of people vote vote. However, holding those views, I'm also screwed in modern politics.
I see it, I just mean why do you have it moving towards conservatism? Not disagreeing, just wondering.
Madison Square Garden 6/25/08
I never liked the idea of electronic voting. Anything that involves executable programs is in danger of tampering.
And even if vote totals are on the level, the element of distrust is not good for our country.
No no! Let me take this one!
Ok... here goes....
What is the Democratic platform? (There will be purple-hooved unicorns and a woman in the white house before this question ever presents itself with an answer)
"What I lack in decorum, I make up for with an absence of tact."
Camden 5-28-06
Washington, D.C. 6-22-08
ha. absolutely. it's good to have friends at the top of corporations and the media (not that those two are separate, really).
cross the river to the eastside
If it was just corruption, dem incumbents would have lost...I think corruption in terms of Iraq was a big issue for voters.
Anyhow, the repub got what they deserved. They coasted to victory...didn;t accomplishe much of what I hoped they would...were running a very unsuccessful war and were unwilling to make any changes. Look at Rummy now...looks like they (the repubs) go the message too late. Perhaps they thought the public was only kidding?
If htey had admitted mistakes, made adjustments, and reached out to eh Dems more often...they's have gotten more done and they still be in power.
And better yet, we, the people, would have gotten a lot more out of the last 12 years and we would get more out of th enext 12 then we'll get. I have very little faith in the upcoming congress...not because they are dems...but because I feel it's the same type of trend that lead to the repubs taking control of congress and I feel the dems will be just as lazy in the lead.
Well, that arguement is the main one, and about the only one, I see coming from the right, on a variety of message boards that I look at. I haven't heard one arguement as to why the Democrats shouldn't win, other than that htey have no platform.
Corruption was the number on issue, followed by terrorism, then the economy, and then Iraq. At least those were the latest exit polls on CNN.
Also, don't set your standards too high for progress with in the next two years. While it's a big game, and the Democrats will now be able to do something, they have a two vote lead in the Senate, and that means that most issues could go either way, as it's definitly not a comfortable margin by any means. They will never have the votes to overthrow Bush's veto, and they're still going to have to get his signature of approval for anything they do. Just saying - it's not like they're going to be able to do everything on their list, but it's a start, and we'll all have to compromise, which typically, and should, result in what's best for this great nation.
Madison Square Garden 6/25/08
That wasn;t me...I was just messing with ya.
Then suggest a better way to vote?
Or maybe let me suggest to you, there's always the exception, that there aren't really problems with voting in the first place... And probably never really was. But rather an extension of bitterness. Refer to Republican contentness with the results.
"What I lack in decorum, I make up for with an absence of tact."
Camden 5-28-06
Washington, D.C. 6-22-08
It's not my job to give up my distrust. It's my public officials' job to assuage it.
We'll just have to agree to disagree then. To me, 'voter irregularities' are more a product of media hype than having anything to do with my trust.
"What I lack in decorum, I make up for with an absence of tact."
Camden 5-28-06
Washington, D.C. 6-22-08
I think both parties will be working towards the presidential election in a couple of years. They will try very hard to find a resolution to Iraq and Afghanistan, Israel/Palestine (just to name a couple of issues) and be able to claim that it is their policies (dem or repub) that enabled a favourable outcome. I'm hoping that, with both parties vying for the elections, they will do their upmost to 'right the wrongs' and get things on track to show their party at their best, ready for 2008.
Just had to comment. What about centrist republicans giving the world Bush and his crowd. Isn't that just the same?
I think you guys have too few parties, quite frankly. Norway have 3 parties in the centre comprising a good 15 % of the votes (varying of course), and two major wing parties on either side. The wings always have to go through at least one of the centrist parties to get control of government. So right now, we have the red/green, with the two left-wing parties, hooking up with the Centre party (former farmer's party) to get control over our "congress".
So I think you should try fostering several other parties, that would better represent where the country stands. In your case, getting democrat light and republican light parties in the centre would be a start, with each of them having separate platforms and policies.
But that's me. I'm just glad I'm not stuck with two options, and one-man-winner-takes-all districts.
Peace
Dan
"Every judgment teeters on the brink of error. To claim absolute knowledge is to become monstrous. Knowledge is an unending adventure at the edge of uncertainty." - Frank Herbert, Dune, 1965
Or it could be the other way around!
Look at California with Schwarzenegger, not your typical Republican, isn't he?
In any case, it depends on reading correctly the electorate mood in order to win. Polarising issues did not yield political success this time round for Rove's political strategy.
____
Zagreb 2006/ Munich 2007/ Venice 2007/ Berlin 2009 / Venice 2010 / 2 x Berlin 2012 / Stockholm 2012 / Milan 2014 / Trieste 2014 / Vienna 2014 / Florence (EV) 2019 / Padova 2018 / Prague 2018 / Imola 2022 / Budapest 2022 / Vienna 2022 / Prague 2022
Why would we take offense? You're from Slovania afterall, no offense.
:eek: meaning..... ??????
Eh, just fucking with him. He slagged the US with a broad brush and then followed with "no offence", so I thought I'd join him.
Lets hope so!
sigh.
http://www.cnn.com/2006/POLITICS/11/08/election.why/index.html
Not that 1 article is the "be all, end all"...but it certainly is trying to make th esame point I did the other day.
Even mentions the Rhode Island race I refered to.
Well sure it mentions the RI race, but then you could just easily put the TN race on the table saying it wasn't W and the war (because of what they said in the article). It doesn't seem so simple. It seems that people had a handful of different reasons, but there was an overall desire for change. Electing democrat majorities to the house and senate is one way of going about that.
cross the river to the eastside