The Low Voter Turnout,.

[Toddsterpatriot]

Most of the people who didn't vote are voting against A and B. The Democrats in Congress have done practically nothing in the last 2 years primarily because Republicans have stopped them. Likewise Republicans have done nothing but block Democrat legislation.

So at a cost of $30 millions a day congress spent two years creating bills they know will never become law, meeting with staff, meeting with reporters, meeting with constituents, attending committee meetings, meeting with lobbyist, holding press conferences, and of course, campaigning for the next election. The one thing they have not done is their job, creating meaningful legislation and next two years don't look any better.

Most of the legislation congress does manage to create is not meaningful nor productive. I would kind of prefer that congress and the president remain at a stalemate rather than creating crappy law.

I would prefer, and apparently so would America, that bills passed by the House received due process in the Senate, which has not happened as Harry Reid has blocked legislation from being voted on, and possibly reaching President "Present".

No more of that shit now, Obama will have to veto bills in full view of the people.

Republicans have only 52 seats in the Senate. That's not much of a majority. It takes 60 seats for a super majority to stop debate which is unlimited in the Senate. Senate members are far more independent than House members, probably due to their 6 year terms. You can't count on all Republicans in the Senate voting in lock step the way House members often do. On many pieces of legislation, Republicans will need independents and Democrats which means compromises.

Obama will soon become a lame duck president. I doubt he will have any problem using his veto power.

Republicans have only 52 seats in the Senate.

54, soon.

 

[Czernobog]

Sure, because they are fed up with obama and democrats in general, which is not the point you wanted to make is it?

Sure it is. That is precisely the point I'm making. You just want to try and make it about voters being "fed up" with the Progressive ideology. They aren't. They're fed up with Obama, and modern Democrats not fighting for the Progressive ideology.

 

[TooTall]

I have heard various incarnations of the following statement, the last few days: "America rejected your agenda......get over it." The reson for this is that the premise goes as follows:

We had a record low turnout in this years election. The "reason" for that record low turnout is that American voters chose to stay home, and not vote to demonstrate their rejection of "the Progressive agenda". Okay. Let's try a little logic, and reason, shall we?

One is faced with two ideological proposals in an election. If one decides to reject ideology "A" in favor of Ideology "B", is the reasonable, logical decision to sit at home, do nothing, and hope that enough other people show their support for ideology "B" that it is adopted, or is the reasonable logical course of action to go out, and actively demonstrate one's support of ideology "B" with one's vote to ensure that it is the ideology that is adopted? I think the answer is fairly obvious.

Thus it makes no sense to suggest that America "demonstrated its rejection" progressivism by doing nothing. So, why did a vast majority of Americans not vote? Well, I do agree that some of the reason is voter suppression, and the various voter ID laws around the nation. However, I think that is only a small part. Let's face it, if "independent" voters truly felt that Democrats were standing up, and fighting for them, the only effect all of these restrictive voter ID laws would have had would have been to piss them off, and make them more determined than ever to make their votes heard, and get the people elected to office that were going to fight to have such restrictions repealed.

No. Much ore to the point was that independents saw Republicans attacking Democrat candidates over, and over, not for any legislative decisions that the candidates, themselves, had made, but simply for the "crime" of being associated with president Obama. In reply these independents saw the Democratic candidates...do nothing! They watched them throw Obama under the bus. The watched them run from Obama as fast as their cowardly little legs would take them. They watched Obama fold on Single Payer. They watched Obama fold on Immigration, and take the coward's route of waiting until after the elections to demand action from the House. They watched Obama continue, and expand the Republican practices of the NRA. They watched Obama continue, and expand the Republican practices of QE. They watched Obama employ the Republican strategies of Middle East aggression. They watched all of this and chose to stay home, rather than vote for Democrats that they had no reason to believe would support their ideologies.

So, if you want to gloat over the fact that Democrats lost, that's fine. They did. But, please do not fool yourselves into thinking that they lost because Americans suddenly embraced your conservative ideologies. That is the same stupidity that causes you to presume that everyone hates Obamacare for the same reasons that you do - which they don't. The vast number of progressives hate Obamacare because they see Obamacare as a betrayal of Progressivism, and an attempt at Conservative appeasement. Believe it, or not, ladies and gentlemen, when Progressives criticise the President, and Democrats, most of the time it is not because they have magically become Conservatives in their sleep; rather it is to send the message that the President, and Democrats have not been Progressive enough for their taste.

Most of the people who didn't vote are voting against A and B. The Democrats in Congress have done practically nothing in the last 2 years primarily because Republicans have stopped them. Likewise Republicans have done nothing but block Democrat legislation.

So at a cost of $30 millions a day congress spent two years creating bills they know will never become law, meeting with staff, meeting with reporters, meeting with constituents, attending committee meetings, meeting with lobbyist, holding press conferences, and of course, campaigning for the next election. The one thing they have not done is their job, creating meaningful legislation and next two years don't look any better.

What you describe has been going on in Congress for decades. In the past bills sent to the Senate from the House went to the appropriate committee where it was voted on whether or not to send it to the full Senate for debate and a vote. Reid sent a few of the bills to committee, but sat on most of them. When and if a committee decides to send the bill to the full Senate, it will need 60 votes to over ride a filibuster. And, that was the end of a lot of the legislation for the last 6 years.

It really doesn't have anything to do with being meaningful, since that is a matter of opinion. The purpose of the two bodies is to debate bills, vote on amendments and vote up or down on the bill. If the bill originated in the house and is amended, it is sent to a bipartisan committee to come to an agreement and then sent back to the House for a vote on the final product. That doesn't seem to be happening either.

 

[peach174]

Sure, because they are fed up with obama and democrats in general, which is not the point you wanted to make is it?

Sure it is. That is precisely the point I'm making. You just want to try and make it about voters being "fed up" with the Progressive ideology. They aren't. They're fed up with Obama, and modern Democrats not fighting for the Progressive ideology.

The whole point is the progressive, conservative and moderate ideology's is States Issues (the peoples voices) not the Feds. Look at how well that turned out when the peoples voices had a say on the social issues - like higher wages and marijuana.
Presidents should be elected to represent all of the people not just one side or the other.
A Presidents job is to run and oversee the different Departments and sometimes congress when they disagree (gridlock), also foreign affairs and the protection of the citizens.

 

[Flopper]

Obama's voter base didn't show up...

...that was kinda my point...

Sure, because they are fed up with obama and democrats in general, which is not the point you wanted to make is it?

IMHO, many Democrat voters are fed up with the party's inability to get legislation through congress. That's doesn't mean they are supporting a Republican agenda.

I have heard various incarnations of the following statement, the last few days: "America rejected your agenda......get over it." The reson for this is that the premise goes as follows:

We had a record low turnout in this years election. The "reason" for that record low turnout is that American voters chose to stay home, and not vote to demonstrate their rejection of "the Progressive agenda". Okay. Let's try a little logic, and reason, shall we?

One is faced with two ideological proposals in an election. If one decides to reject ideology "A" in favor of Ideology "B", is the reasonable, logical decision to sit at home, do nothing, and hope that enough other people show their support for ideology "B" that it is adopted, or is the reasonable logical course of action to go out, and actively demonstrate one's support of ideology "B" with one's vote to ensure that it is the ideology that is adopted? I think the answer is fairly obvious.

Thus it makes no sense to suggest that America "demonstrated its rejection" progressivism by doing nothing. So, why did a vast majority of Americans not vote? Well, I do agree that some of the reason is voter suppression, and the various voter ID laws around the nation. However, I think that is only a small part. Let's face it, if "independent" voters truly felt that Democrats were standing up, and fighting for them, the only effect all of these restrictive voter ID laws would have had would have been to piss them off, and make them more determined than ever to make their votes heard, and get the people elected to office that were going to fight to have such restrictions repealed.

No. Much ore to the point was that independents saw Republicans attacking Democrat candidates over, and over, not for any legislative decisions that the candidates, themselves, had made, but simply for the "crime" of being associated with president Obama. In reply these independents saw the Democratic candidates...do nothing! They watched them throw Obama under the bus. The watched them run from Obama as fast as their cowardly little legs would take them. They watched Obama fold on Single Payer. They watched Obama fold on Immigration, and take the coward's route of waiting until after the elections to demand action from the House. They watched Obama continue, and expand the Republican practices of the NRA. They watched Obama continue, and expand the Republican practices of QE. They watched Obama employ the Republican strategies of Middle East aggression. They watched all of this and chose to stay home, rather than vote for Democrats that they had no reason to believe would support their ideologies.

So, if you want to gloat over the fact that Democrats lost, that's fine. They did. But, please do not fool yourselves into thinking that they lost because Americans suddenly embraced your conservative ideologies. That is the same stupidity that causes you to presume that everyone hates Obamacare for the same reasons that you do - which they don't. The vast number of progressives hate Obamacare because they see Obamacare as a betrayal of Progressivism, and an attempt at Conservative appeasement. Believe it, or not, ladies and gentlemen, when Progressives criticise the President, and Democrats, most of the time it is not because they have magically become Conservatives in their sleep; rather it is to send the message that the President, and Democrats have not been Progressive enough for their taste.

Most of the people who didn't vote are voting against A and B. The Democrats in Congress have done practically nothing in the last 2 years primarily because Republicans have stopped them. Likewise Republicans have done nothing but block Democrat legislation.

So at a cost of $30 millions a day congress spent two years creating bills they know will never become law, meeting with staff, meeting with reporters, meeting with constituents, attending committee meetings, meeting with lobbyist, holding press conferences, and of course, campaigning for the next election. The one thing they have not done is their job, creating meaningful legislation and next two years don't look any better.

What you describe has been going on in Congress for decades. In the past bills sent to the Senate from the House went to the appropriate committee where it was voted on whether or not to send it to the full Senate for debate and a vote. Reid sent a few of the bills to committee, but sat on most of them. When and if a committee decides to send the bill to the full Senate, it will need 60 votes to over ride a filibuster. And, that was the end of a lot of the legislation for the last 6 years.

It really doesn't have anything to do with being meaningful, since that is a matter of opinion. The purpose of the two bodies is to debate bills, vote on amendments and vote up or down on the bill. If the bill originated in the house and is amended, it is sent to a bipartisan committee to come to an agreement and then sent back to the House for a vote on the final product. That doesn't seem to be happening either.

When I said, "The one thing they have not done is their job, creating meaningful legislation", I was speaking from the perspective of a voter. Maybe you think creating legislation strictly for political purposes that has no chance of passing is their job. I don't and millions of other voters agree.

 

[bigrebnc1775]

Obama's voter base didn't show up...

...that was kinda my point...

Sure, because they are fed up with obama and democrats in general, which is not the point you wanted to make is it?

IMHO, many Democrat voters are fed up with the party's inability to get legislation through congress. That's doesn't mean they are supporting a Republican agenda.

Did I say they supported a republican agenda? If I didn't which I didn't stop insinuating that I did. However they are fed up with the democrat bull shit agenda.

 

[TooTall]

Obama's voter base didn't show up...

...that was kinda my point...

Sure, because they are fed up with obama and democrats in general, which is not the point you wanted to make is it?

IMHO, many Democrat voters are fed up with the party's inability to get legislation through congress. That's doesn't mean they are supporting a Republican agenda.

I have heard various incarnations of the following statement, the last few days: "America rejected your agenda......get over it." The reson for this is that the premise goes as follows:

We had a record low turnout in this years election. The "reason" for that record low turnout is that American voters chose to stay home, and not vote to demonstrate their rejection of "the Progressive agenda". Okay. Let's try a little logic, and reason, shall we?

One is faced with two ideological proposals in an election. If one decides to reject ideology "A" in favor of Ideology "B", is the reasonable, logical decision to sit at home, do nothing, and hope that enough other people show their support for ideology "B" that it is adopted, or is the reasonable logical course of action to go out, and actively demonstrate one's support of ideology "B" with one's vote to ensure that it is the ideology that is adopted? I think the answer is fairly obvious.

Thus it makes no sense to suggest that America "demonstrated its rejection" progressivism by doing nothing. So, why did a vast majority of Americans not vote? Well, I do agree that some of the reason is voter suppression, and the various voter ID laws around the nation. However, I think that is only a small part. Let's face it, if "independent" voters truly felt that Democrats were standing up, and fighting for them, the only effect all of these restrictive voter ID laws would have had would have been to piss them off, and make them more determined than ever to make their votes heard, and get the people elected to office that were going to fight to have such restrictions repealed.

No. Much ore to the point was that independents saw Republicans attacking Democrat candidates over, and over, not for any legislative decisions that the candidates, themselves, had made, but simply for the "crime" of being associated with president Obama. In reply these independents saw the Democratic candidates...do nothing! They watched them throw Obama under the bus. The watched them run from Obama as fast as their cowardly little legs would take them. They watched Obama fold on Single Payer. They watched Obama fold on Immigration, and take the coward's route of waiting until after the elections to demand action from the House. They watched Obama continue, and expand the Republican practices of the NRA. They watched Obama continue, and expand the Republican practices of QE. They watched Obama employ the Republican strategies of Middle East aggression. They watched all of this and chose to stay home, rather than vote for Democrats that they had no reason to believe would support their ideologies.

So, if you want to gloat over the fact that Democrats lost, that's fine. They did. But, please do not fool yourselves into thinking that they lost because Americans suddenly embraced your conservative ideologies. That is the same stupidity that causes you to presume that everyone hates Obamacare for the same reasons that you do - which they don't. The vast number of progressives hate Obamacare because they see Obamacare as a betrayal of Progressivism, and an attempt at Conservative appeasement. Believe it, or not, ladies and gentlemen, when Progressives criticise the President, and Democrats, most of the time it is not because they have magically become Conservatives in their sleep; rather it is to send the message that the President, and Democrats have not been Progressive enough for their taste.

Most of the people who didn't vote are voting against A and B. The Democrats in Congress have done practically nothing in the last 2 years primarily because Republicans have stopped them. Likewise Republicans have done nothing but block Democrat legislation.

So at a cost of $30 millions a day congress spent two years creating bills they know will never become law, meeting with staff, meeting with reporters, meeting with constituents, attending committee meetings, meeting with lobbyist, holding press conferences, and of course, campaigning for the next election. The one thing they have not done is their job, creating meaningful legislation and next two years don't look any better.

What you describe has been going on in Congress for decades. In the past bills sent to the Senate from the House went to the appropriate committee where it was voted on whether or not to send it to the full Senate for debate and a vote. Reid sent a few of the bills to committee, but sat on most of them. When and if a committee decides to send the bill to the full Senate, it will need 60 votes to over ride a filibuster. And, that was the end of a lot of the legislation for the last 6 years.

It really doesn't have anything to do with being meaningful, since that is a matter of opinion. The purpose of the two bodies is to debate bills, vote on amendments and vote up or down on the bill. If the bill originated in the house and is amended, it is sent to a bipartisan committee to come to an agreement and then sent back to the House for a vote on the final product. That doesn't seem to be happening either.

When I said, "The one thing they have not done is their job, creating meaningful legislation", I was speaking from the perspective of a voter. Maybe you think creating legislation strictly for political purposes that has no chance of passing is their job. I don't and millions of other voters agree.

What you meant to say is creating meaningful legislation from the perspective of a partisan voter.

 

[Bill Angel]

They have watched Obama continue, and expand the Republican practices of QE.

If by QE you are referring to the Federal Reserve's policy of Quantitative Easing, that was a monetary policy that Obama had no control over.

 

[Stephanie]

Obama's voter base didn't show up...

...that was kinda my point...

Sure, because they are fed up with obama and democrats in general, which is not the point you wanted to make is it?

IMHO, many Democrat voters are fed up with the party's inability to get legislation through congress. That's doesn't mean they are supporting a Republican agenda.

I have heard various incarnations of the following statement, the last few days: "America rejected your agenda......get over it." The reson for this is that the premise goes as follows:

We had a record low turnout in this years election. The "reason" for that record low turnout is that American voters chose to stay home, and not vote to demonstrate their rejection of "the Progressive agenda". Okay. Let's try a little logic, and reason, shall we?

One is faced with two ideological proposals in an election. If one decides to reject ideology "A" in favor of Ideology "B", is the reasonable, logical decision to sit at home, do nothing, and hope that enough other people show their support for ideology "B" that it is adopted, or is the reasonable logical course of action to go out, and actively demonstrate one's support of ideology "B" with one's vote to ensure that it is the ideology that is adopted? I think the answer is fairly obvious.

Thus it makes no sense to suggest that America "demonstrated its rejection" progressivism by doing nothing. So, why did a vast majority of Americans not vote? Well, I do agree that some of the reason is voter suppression, and the various voter ID laws around the nation. However, I think that is only a small part. Let's face it, if "independent" voters truly felt that Democrats were standing up, and fighting for them, the only effect all of these restrictive voter ID laws would have had would have been to piss them off, and make them more determined than ever to make their votes heard, and get the people elected to office that were going to fight to have such restrictions repealed.

No. Much ore to the point was that independents saw Republicans attacking Democrat candidates over, and over, not for any legislative decisions that the candidates, themselves, had made, but simply for the "crime" of being associated with president Obama. In reply these independents saw the Democratic candidates...do nothing! They watched them throw Obama under the bus. The watched them run from Obama as fast as their cowardly little legs would take them. They watched Obama fold on Single Payer. They watched Obama fold on Immigration, and take the coward's route of waiting until after the elections to demand action from the House. They watched Obama continue, and expand the Republican practices of the NRA. They watched Obama continue, and expand the Republican practices of QE. They watched Obama employ the Republican strategies of Middle East aggression. They watched all of this and chose to stay home, rather than vote for Democrats that they had no reason to believe would support their ideologies.

So, if you want to gloat over the fact that Democrats lost, that's fine. They did. But, please do not fool yourselves into thinking that they lost because Americans suddenly embraced your conservative ideologies. That is the same stupidity that causes you to presume that everyone hates Obamacare for the same reasons that you do - which they don't. The vast number of progressives hate Obamacare because they see Obamacare as a betrayal of Progressivism, and an attempt at Conservative appeasement. Believe it, or not, ladies and gentlemen, when Progressives criticise the President, and Democrats, most of the time it is not because they have magically become Conservatives in their sleep; rather it is to send the message that the President, and Democrats have not been Progressive enough for their taste.

Most of the people who didn't vote are voting against A and B. The Democrats in Congress have done practically nothing in the last 2 years primarily because Republicans have stopped them. Likewise Republicans have done nothing but block Democrat legislation.

So at a cost of $30 millions a day congress spent two years creating bills they know will never become law, meeting with staff, meeting with reporters, meeting with constituents, attending committee meetings, meeting with lobbyist, holding press conferences, and of course, campaigning for the next election. The one thing they have not done is their job, creating meaningful legislation and next two years don't look any better.

What you describe has been going on in Congress for decades. In the past bills sent to the Senate from the House went to the appropriate committee where it was voted on whether or not to send it to the full Senate for debate and a vote. Reid sent a few of the bills to committee, but sat on most of them. When and if a committee decides to send the bill to the full Senate, it will need 60 votes to over ride a filibuster. And, that was the end of a lot of the legislation for the last 6 years.

It really doesn't have anything to do with being meaningful, since that is a matter of opinion. The purpose of the two bodies is to debate bills, vote on amendments and vote up or down on the bill. If the bill originated in the house and is amended, it is sent to a bipartisan committee to come to an agreement and then sent back to the House for a vote on the final product. That doesn't seem to be happening either.

When I said, "The one thing they have not done is their job, creating meaningful legislation", I was speaking from the perspective of a voter. Maybe you think creating legislation strictly for political purposes that has no chance of passing is their job. I don't and millions of other voters agree.

right, because they can't pass more garbage bills that will strangle us more (like what SIZE soda cups you need to drink from) that must of been why Democrats stayed home. Because we all know they can't live their lives without Guberment telling them how to do it, right flopper?
man oh man you make Democrats look like they are "dependents" of the Federal Government

 

[Stephanie]

here you go, you Democrats dependent on Government. WILL this be enough of them IN YOUR LIVES? for crying out loud we are going to be SLAVES to this Federal Government and Flopper said, you all stayed home because they didn't PASS ENOUGH bills on us? Remember when they CAME FOR THE SMOKERS you all said NOTHING?

snip

Federal Committee: We Need Fat Interventions At Worksites
Dietary Guidelines Advisory Committee calls for increased ‘monitoring’ of kids’ weight, mandatory check-ups
SHARE
TWEET
EMAIL

AP
BY:Elizabeth Harrington
November 7, 2014 2:25 pm
The federal committee charged with creating nutrition guidelines for Americans is calling for fat interventions at workplaces.
During a presentation at the sixth meeting of the 2015 Dietary Guidelines Advisory Committee (DGAC) on Friday, the committee said government needs to take “bold action” to fight obesity.
The solutions included “comprehensive” obesity interventions in “health care, the community, public health facilities, and work sites.”
“The public should monitor body weight and engage with providers in evidence-based approaches aimed at achieving and maintaining healthy body weight,” the panel said in a presentation on “Food and Nutrient Intakes, and Health.”
The committee, which is responsible for creating new nutrition standards that are used to create policy at the federal level, has previously called for moving Americans to “plant-based” diets, and usingtext message interventionsto get people to lose weight.
“Bold action is needed to confront the Nation’s obesity epidemic and its devastating metabolic consequences,” a slide said during the presentation on Friday. “Quality of care guidelines need to be revised to incentivize personalized lifestyle and nutrition interventions.”
The committee said it is “imperative” to create obesity interventions that would bring in “trained interventionists and professional nutrition service providers” for “delivery in multiple settings.”
The panel claimed that 65 percent of adult females and 70 percent of adult males are overweight or obese, and argued that “environmental strategies” are needed to fight obesity.
“Complement health care and public health initiatives with collaborative programming in agriculture, retail, educational, and social service settings lifestyle for long-term adoption of health nutrition and lifestyle behavior,” read one recommendation.
Dr. Barbara Millen, the chair of DGAC, said obesity interventions must be expanded beyond health care settings.
“It’s pretty clear in a public health model with focus on the individual as well as the populations that all of this cannot be accomplished in a health care setting,” she said. “It really will take a broad strategy across environments … not only traditional health care, community settings. And these can’t be a siloed approach but across sectors to be effective.”
Dr. Anna Maria Siega-Riz, a nutritional epidemiologist at the University of North Carolina at Chapel Hill, agreed and called for more monitoring of children’s weight, and for mandatory doctors visits.
“I was pretty much stunned, though I’m quite well aware of the chronic health care outcomes for young adults and preadolescents,” she said. “The more we can do to call for really bold action among these groups in a meaningful way of trying to combat this.”

all of it here:
Federal Committee We Need Fat Interventions At Worksites Washington Free Beacon

 

[Stephanie]

 

[Czernobog]

They have watched Obama continue, and expand the Republican practices of QE.

If by QE you are referring to the Federal Reserve's policy of Quantitative Easing, that was a monetary policy that Obama had no control over.

Well, but he could have replaced the Fed with someone who would have stopped injecting fake money into the market...

 

[Silhouette]

The poll results here: Should Churches be forced to accomodate for homosexual weddings Page 464 US Message Board - Political Discussion Forum
And here...: Should Churches Be Forced to Accomodate for Homosexual Adoptions US Message Board - Political Discussion Forum

+

The OP picture here: The Democrat Dilemma A Palpable Party Rift US Message Board - Political Discussion Forum

= Low voter turnout for dems & middle voters.

I can't begin to wonder why hardline republicans stayed home.

 

[Flopper]

Obama's voter base didn't show up...

...that was kinda my point...

Sure, because they are fed up with obama and democrats in general, which is not the point you wanted to make is it?

IMHO, many Democrat voters are fed up with the party's inability to get legislation through congress. That's doesn't mean they are supporting a Republican agenda.

I have heard various incarnations of the following statement, the last few days: "America rejected your agenda......get over it." The reson for this is that the premise goes as follows:

We had a record low turnout in this years election. The "reason" for that record low turnout is that American voters chose to stay home, and not vote to demonstrate their rejection of "the Progressive agenda". Okay. Let's try a little logic, and reason, shall we?

One is faced with two ideological proposals in an election. If one decides to reject ideology "A" in favor of Ideology "B", is the reasonable, logical decision to sit at home, do nothing, and hope that enough other people show their support for ideology "B" that it is adopted, or is the reasonable logical course of action to go out, and actively demonstrate one's support of ideology "B" with one's vote to ensure that it is the ideology that is adopted? I think the answer is fairly obvious.

Thus it makes no sense to suggest that America "demonstrated its rejection" progressivism by doing nothing. So, why did a vast majority of Americans not vote? Well, I do agree that some of the reason is voter suppression, and the various voter ID laws around the nation. However, I think that is only a small part. Let's face it, if "independent" voters truly felt that Democrats were standing up, and fighting for them, the only effect all of these restrictive voter ID laws would have had would have been to piss them off, and make them more determined than ever to make their votes heard, and get the people elected to office that were going to fight to have such restrictions repealed.

No. Much ore to the point was that independents saw Republicans attacking Democrat candidates over, and over, not for any legislative decisions that the candidates, themselves, had made, but simply for the "crime" of being associated with president Obama. In reply these independents saw the Democratic candidates...do nothing! They watched them throw Obama under the bus. The watched them run from Obama as fast as their cowardly little legs would take them. They watched Obama fold on Single Payer. They watched Obama fold on Immigration, and take the coward's route of waiting until after the elections to demand action from the House. They watched Obama continue, and expand the Republican practices of the NRA. They watched Obama continue, and expand the Republican practices of QE. They watched Obama employ the Republican strategies of Middle East aggression. They watched all of this and chose to stay home, rather than vote for Democrats that they had no reason to believe would support their ideologies.

So, if you want to gloat over the fact that Democrats lost, that's fine. They did. But, please do not fool yourselves into thinking that they lost because Americans suddenly embraced your conservative ideologies. That is the same stupidity that causes you to presume that everyone hates Obamacare for the same reasons that you do - which they don't. The vast number of progressives hate Obamacare because they see Obamacare as a betrayal of Progressivism, and an attempt at Conservative appeasement. Believe it, or not, ladies and gentlemen, when Progressives criticise the President, and Democrats, most of the time it is not because they have magically become Conservatives in their sleep; rather it is to send the message that the President, and Democrats have not been Progressive enough for their taste.

Most of the people who didn't vote are voting against A and B. The Democrats in Congress have done practically nothing in the last 2 years primarily because Republicans have stopped them. Likewise Republicans have done nothing but block Democrat legislation.

So at a cost of $30 millions a day congress spent two years creating bills they know will never become law, meeting with staff, meeting with reporters, meeting with constituents, attending committee meetings, meeting with lobbyist, holding press conferences, and of course, campaigning for the next election. The one thing they have not done is their job, creating meaningful legislation and next two years don't look any better.

What you describe has been going on in Congress for decades. In the past bills sent to the Senate from the House went to the appropriate committee where it was voted on whether or not to send it to the full Senate for debate and a vote. Reid sent a few of the bills to committee, but sat on most of them. When and if a committee decides to send the bill to the full Senate, it will need 60 votes to over ride a filibuster. And, that was the end of a lot of the legislation for the last 6 years.

It really doesn't have anything to do with being meaningful, since that is a matter of opinion. The purpose of the two bodies is to debate bills, vote on amendments and vote up or down on the bill. If the bill originated in the house and is amended, it is sent to a bipartisan committee to come to an agreement and then sent back to the House for a vote on the final product. That doesn't seem to be happening either.

When I said, "The one thing they have not done is their job, creating meaningful legislation", I was speaking from the perspective of a voter. Maybe you think creating legislation strictly for political purposes that has no chance of passing is their job. I don't and millions of other voters agree.

right, because they can't pass more garbage bills that will strangle us more (like what SIZE soda cups you need to drink from) that must of been why Democrats stayed home. Because we all know they can't live their lives without Guberment telling them how to do it, right flopper?
man oh man you make Democrats look like they are "dependents" of the Federal Government

The fact is that most Americans be them Republicans, Democrats, or whatever depend on government. Republicans promise a small less expensive government but they have no intention of delivering on that promise. Notice how McConnell is backing off from his promise to repeal Obamacare now that Republicans control the Senate.

To make substantial cuts in government means cutting spending in areas such as defense, Medicare, Medicaid, Homeland Security, federal welfare programs, food stamps, health insurance subsidies, education, and thousands of programs that directly benefit both voters, and businesses. People will support government cuts as long as those cuts don't effect them. Americans may hate big government but they love those healthcare subsidies, Medicare and Medicaid benefits, food stamps, free and reduced school lunches, large defense contracts, new roads and bridges, government disaster aid, and protection from terrorist attacks. What Americans really want is all the goodies that big government provides without having to pay the piper.

 

[bigrebnc1775]

Obama's voter base didn't show up...

...that was kinda my point...

Sure, because they are fed up with obama and democrats in general, which is not the point you wanted to make is it?

IMHO, many Democrat voters are fed up with the party's inability to get legislation through congress. That's doesn't mean they are supporting a Republican agenda.

I have heard various incarnations of the following statement, the last few days: "America rejected your agenda......get over it." The reson for this is that the premise goes as follows:

We had a record low turnout in this years election. The "reason" for that record low turnout is that American voters chose to stay home, and not vote to demonstrate their rejection of "the Progressive agenda". Okay. Let's try a little logic, and reason, shall we?

One is faced with two ideological proposals in an election. If one decides to reject ideology "A" in favor of Ideology "B", is the reasonable, logical decision to sit at home, do nothing, and hope that enough other people show their support for ideology "B" that it is adopted, or is the reasonable logical course of action to go out, and actively demonstrate one's support of ideology "B" with one's vote to ensure that it is the ideology that is adopted? I think the answer is fairly obvious.

Thus it makes no sense to suggest that America "demonstrated its rejection" progressivism by doing nothing. So, why did a vast majority of Americans not vote? Well, I do agree that some of the reason is voter suppression, and the various voter ID laws around the nation. However, I think that is only a small part. Let's face it, if "independent" voters truly felt that Democrats were standing up, and fighting for them, the only effect all of these restrictive voter ID laws would have had would have been to piss them off, and make them more determined than ever to make their votes heard, and get the people elected to office that were going to fight to have such restrictions repealed.

No. Much ore to the point was that independents saw Republicans attacking Democrat candidates over, and over, not for any legislative decisions that the candidates, themselves, had made, but simply for the "crime" of being associated with president Obama. In reply these independents saw the Democratic candidates...do nothing! They watched them throw Obama under the bus. The watched them run from Obama as fast as their cowardly little legs would take them. They watched Obama fold on Single Payer. They watched Obama fold on Immigration, and take the coward's route of waiting until after the elections to demand action from the House. They watched Obama continue, and expand the Republican practices of the NRA. They watched Obama continue, and expand the Republican practices of QE. They watched Obama employ the Republican strategies of Middle East aggression. They watched all of this and chose to stay home, rather than vote for Democrats that they had no reason to believe would support their ideologies.

So, if you want to gloat over the fact that Democrats lost, that's fine. They did. But, please do not fool yourselves into thinking that they lost because Americans suddenly embraced your conservative ideologies. That is the same stupidity that causes you to presume that everyone hates Obamacare for the same reasons that you do - which they don't. The vast number of progressives hate Obamacare because they see Obamacare as a betrayal of Progressivism, and an attempt at Conservative appeasement. Believe it, or not, ladies and gentlemen, when Progressives criticise the President, and Democrats, most of the time it is not because they have magically become Conservatives in their sleep; rather it is to send the message that the President, and Democrats have not been Progressive enough for their taste.

Most of the people who didn't vote are voting against A and B. The Democrats in Congress have done practically nothing in the last 2 years primarily because Republicans have stopped them. Likewise Republicans have done nothing but block Democrat legislation.

So at a cost of $30 millions a day congress spent two years creating bills they know will never become law, meeting with staff, meeting with reporters, meeting with constituents, attending committee meetings, meeting with lobbyist, holding press conferences, and of course, campaigning for the next election. The one thing they have not done is their job, creating meaningful legislation and next two years don't look any better.

What you describe has been going on in Congress for decades. In the past bills sent to the Senate from the House went to the appropriate committee where it was voted on whether or not to send it to the full Senate for debate and a vote. Reid sent a few of the bills to committee, but sat on most of them. When and if a committee decides to send the bill to the full Senate, it will need 60 votes to over ride a filibuster. And, that was the end of a lot of the legislation for the last 6 years.

It really doesn't have anything to do with being meaningful, since that is a matter of opinion. The purpose of the two bodies is to debate bills, vote on amendments and vote up or down on the bill. If the bill originated in the house and is amended, it is sent to a bipartisan committee to come to an agreement and then sent back to the House for a vote on the final product. That doesn't seem to be happening either.

When I said, "The one thing they have not done is their job, creating meaningful legislation", I was speaking from the perspective of a voter. Maybe you think creating legislation strictly for political purposes that has no chance of passing is their job. I don't and millions of other voters agree.

right, because they can't pass more garbage bills that will strangle us more (like what SIZE soda cups you need to drink from) that must of been why Democrats stayed home. Because we all know they can't live their lives without Guberment telling them how to do it, right flopper?
man oh man you make Democrats look like they are "dependents" of the Federal Government

The fact is that most Americans be them Republicans, Democrats, or whatever depend on government. Republicans promise a small less expensive government but they have no intention of delivering on that promise. Notice how McConnell is backing off from his promise to repeal Obamacare now that Republicans control the Senate.

To make substantial cuts in government means cutting spending in areas such as defense, Medicare, Medicaid, Homeland Security, federal welfare programs, food stamps, health insurance subsidies, education, and thousands of programs that directly benefit both voters, and businesses. People will support government cuts as long as those cuts don't effect them. Americans may hate big government but they love those healthcare subsidies, Medicare and Medicaid benefits, food stamps, free and reduced school lunches, large defense contracts, new roads and bridges, government disaster aid, and protection from terrorist attacks. What Americans really want is all the goodies that big government provides without having to pay the piper.

“I am not on the ballot this fall. Michelle’s pretty happy about that. But make no mistake: These policies are on the ballot. Every single one of them,” Obama said in prepared remarks at Northwestern University.
What I find hard to believe that it was a prepared statement the arrogance of obama killed the democrats. I mean if obama faithful were behind him they would have made the effort because of that statement to go out and vote. But seems not many support obama's policies and the dems running for re-election paid the price for obama's arrogance

 

[Iceweasel]

The fact is that most Americans be them Republicans, Democrats, or whatever depend on government. Republicans promise a small less expensive government but they have no intention of delivering on that promise. Notice how McConnell is backing off from his promise to repeal Obamacare now that Republicans control the Senate.

To make substantial cuts in government means cutting spending in areas such as defense, Medicare, Medicaid, Homeland Security, federal welfare programs, food stamps, health insurance subsidies, education, and thousands of programs that directly benefit both voters, and businesses. People will support government cuts as long as those cuts don't effect them. Americans may hate big government but they love those healthcare subsidies, Medicare and Medicaid benefits, food stamps, free and reduced school lunches, large defense contracts, new roads and bridges, government disaster aid, and protection from terrorist attacks. What Americans really want is all the goodies that big government provides without having to pay the piper.

Where do you get your "facts"? Most people I know would rather not pay into SS and have their own plan. Same with insurance. Most people want welfare? You are confusing your opinions for facts.

 

[Stephanie]

The fact is that most Americans be them Republicans, Democrats, or whatever depend on government. Republicans promise a small less expensive government but they have no intention of delivering on that promise. Notice how McConnell is backing off from his promise to repeal Obamacare now that Republicans control the Senate.

To make substantial cuts in government means cutting spending in areas such as defense, Medicare, Medicaid, Homeland Security, federal welfare programs, food stamps, health insurance subsidies, education, and thousands of programs that directly benefit both voters, and businesses. People will support government cuts as long as those cuts don't effect them. Americans may hate big government but they love those healthcare subsidies, Medicare and Medicaid benefits, food stamps, free and reduced school lunches, large defense contracts, new roads and bridges, government disaster aid, and protection from terrorist attacks. What Americans really want is all the goodies that big government provides without having to pay the piper.

Where do you get your "facts"? Most people I know would rather not pay into SS and have their own plan. Same with insurance. Most people want welfare? You are confusing your opinions for facts.

He left out the most Important fact:

Most of those people are DEPENDING on TAXPAYERS TO make their way FOR THEM, whereas Government doesn't have it's OWN MONEY. Now you SEE how the Democrat party pushes dependency off on the people as a way a life by making EXCUSES for them to live off taxpayers backs and taking monies away from THEIR FAMILIES to do it
Liberals are so compassionate and generous WITH other peoples monies

 

[Flopper]

...that was kinda my point...

Sure, because they are fed up with obama and democrats in general, which is not the point you wanted to make is it?

IMHO, many Democrat voters are fed up with the party's inability to get legislation through congress. That's doesn't mean they are supporting a Republican agenda.

Most of the people who didn't vote are voting against A and B. The Democrats in Congress have done practically nothing in the last 2 years primarily because Republicans have stopped them. Likewise Republicans have done nothing but block Democrat legislation.

So at a cost of $30 millions a day congress spent two years creating bills they know will never become law, meeting with staff, meeting with reporters, meeting with constituents, attending committee meetings, meeting with lobbyist, holding press conferences, and of course, campaigning for the next election. The one thing they have not done is their job, creating meaningful legislation and next two years don't look any better.

What you describe has been going on in Congress for decades. In the past bills sent to the Senate from the House went to the appropriate committee where it was voted on whether or not to send it to the full Senate for debate and a vote. Reid sent a few of the bills to committee, but sat on most of them. When and if a committee decides to send the bill to the full Senate, it will need 60 votes to over ride a filibuster. And, that was the end of a lot of the legislation for the last 6 years.

It really doesn't have anything to do with being meaningful, since that is a matter of opinion. The purpose of the two bodies is to debate bills, vote on amendments and vote up or down on the bill. If the bill originated in the house and is amended, it is sent to a bipartisan committee to come to an agreement and then sent back to the House for a vote on the final product. That doesn't seem to be happening either.

When I said, "The one thing they have not done is their job, creating meaningful legislation", I was speaking from the perspective of a voter. Maybe you think creating legislation strictly for political purposes that has no chance of passing is their job. I don't and millions of other voters agree.

right, because they can't pass more garbage bills that will strangle us more (like what SIZE soda cups you need to drink from) that must of been why Democrats stayed home. Because we all know they can't live their lives without Guberment telling them how to do it, right flopper?
man oh man you make Democrats look like they are "dependents" of the Federal Government

The fact is that most Americans be them Republicans, Democrats, or whatever depend on government. Republicans promise a small less expensive government but they have no intention of delivering on that promise. Notice how McConnell is backing off from his promise to repeal Obamacare now that Republicans control the Senate.

To make substantial cuts in government means cutting spending in areas such as defense, Medicare, Medicaid, Homeland Security, federal welfare programs, food stamps, health insurance subsidies, education, and thousands of programs that directly benefit both voters, and businesses. People will support government cuts as long as those cuts don't effect them. Americans may hate big government but they love those healthcare subsidies, Medicare and Medicaid benefits, food stamps, free and reduced school lunches, large defense contracts, new roads and bridges, government disaster aid, and protection from terrorist attacks. What Americans really want is all the goodies that big government provides without having to pay the piper.

“I am not on the ballot this fall. Michelle’s pretty happy about that. But make no mistake: These policies are on the ballot. Every single one of them,” Obama said in prepared remarks at Northwestern University.
What I find hard to believe that it was a prepared statement the arrogance of obama killed the democrats. I mean if obama faithful were behind him they would have made the effort because of that statement to go out and vote. But seems not many support obama's policies and the dems running for re-election paid the price for obama's arrogance

Obama has always been cool, confident, and self-assured, certainly not a bad traits for a president. His opponents choose to interpret this as being arrogance, opinionated, and conceited, or what southerners use to call an "uppity N*****."

Turnout was abysmal across the nation at 34%, low for even midterm elections. There wasn't much reason for Democrats to vote. Republicans would continue to control the House and block Democrat legislation and wouldn't be able to override a veto. If I hadn't been voting by mail, I probably wouldn't have voted.

 

[Stephanie]

Sure, because they are fed up with obama and democrats in general, which is not the point you wanted to make is it?

IMHO, many Democrat voters are fed up with the party's inability to get legislation through congress. That's doesn't mean they are supporting a Republican agenda.

What you describe has been going on in Congress for decades. In the past bills sent to the Senate from the House went to the appropriate committee where it was voted on whether or not to send it to the full Senate for debate and a vote. Reid sent a few of the bills to committee, but sat on most of them. When and if a committee decides to send the bill to the full Senate, it will need 60 votes to over ride a filibuster. And, that was the end of a lot of the legislation for the last 6 years.

It really doesn't have anything to do with being meaningful, since that is a matter of opinion. The purpose of the two bodies is to debate bills, vote on amendments and vote up or down on the bill. If the bill originated in the house and is amended, it is sent to a bipartisan committee to come to an agreement and then sent back to the House for a vote on the final product. That doesn't seem to be happening either.

When I said, "The one thing they have not done is their job, creating meaningful legislation", I was speaking from the perspective of a voter. Maybe you think creating legislation strictly for political purposes that has no chance of passing is their job. I don't and millions of other voters agree.

right, because they can't pass more garbage bills that will strangle us more (like what SIZE soda cups you need to drink from) that must of been why Democrats stayed home. Because we all know they can't live their lives without Guberment telling them how to do it, right flopper?
man oh man you make Democrats look like they are "dependents" of the Federal Government

The fact is that most Americans be them Republicans, Democrats, or whatever depend on government. Republicans promise a small less expensive government but they have no intention of delivering on that promise. Notice how McConnell is backing off from his promise to repeal Obamacare now that Republicans control the Senate.

To make substantial cuts in government means cutting spending in areas such as defense, Medicare, Medicaid, Homeland Security, federal welfare programs, food stamps, health insurance subsidies, education, and thousands of programs that directly benefit both voters, and businesses. People will support government cuts as long as those cuts don't effect them. Americans may hate big government but they love those healthcare subsidies, Medicare and Medicaid benefits, food stamps, free and reduced school lunches, large defense contracts, new roads and bridges, government disaster aid, and protection from terrorist attacks. What Americans really want is all the goodies that big government provides without having to pay the piper.

“I am not on the ballot this fall. Michelle’s pretty happy about that. But make no mistake: These policies are on the ballot. Every single one of them,” Obama said in prepared remarks at Northwestern University.
What I find hard to believe that it was a prepared statement the arrogance of obama killed the democrats. I mean if obama faithful were behind him they would have made the effort because of that statement to go out and vote. But seems not many support obama's policies and the dems running for re-election paid the price for obama's arrogance

Obama has always been cool, confident, and self-assured, certainly not a bad traits for a president. His opponents choose to interpret this as being arrogance, opinionated, and conceited.

Turnout was abysmal across the nation at 34%, low for even midterm elections. There wasn't much reason for Democrats to vote. Republicans would continue to control the House and block Democrat legislation and wouldn't be able to override a veto. If I hadn't been voting by mail, I probably wouldn't have voted.

yeah sure he has. like when he's wailing over Rush Limbaugh, Fox news or Sarah Palin. which one of those do you judge to be cool, calm and confident.
good gawd man you have a man crush on the guy. icky

 

[JoeB131]

omg. it JUST CAN'T be the voters REJECTED the Dem/commie AGENDA.

there must be another EXCUSE

FACE IT, they rejected your Fascist commie Socialist AGENDA. They started IN 2010 but you didn't learn then and came up the same lame ass excuses. Well THEY TOTALLY rejected your asses and agenda this time

Staph, that would be great if your guys actually talked about what you plan to do.

The point is, most of the Republicans who won did so bcause they didn't talk about banning abortions or persecuting hte gays or sending all the Mexicans back, much less the crazy shit like "Let's give more tax cuts to rich people".