GOP: would you like your hemlock on the rocks? New Jersey senate race
See video link
http://www.nbcnews.com/id/3036697/ns/ms … 5#52776545
Otherwise to recap-
After watching Chris Matthews :
Steve Lonegan is supposed the be the GOP standard bearer against Democrat Cory Booker for the upcoming NJ senate race. Is this just more GOP merchandize being put up for sale that the people are not buying? You saw the video
He opposes
1 Marriage equality (the gay community is going to love this)
2. Gun control (this may not be the state to promote such a position)
3. Abortion, even in the case of rape or incest (this will enamor him with the ladies)
4. The IRS and wants to dismantle same.(while extreme I could go with this)
5. The concept of climate change, in direct opposition to the overwhelming preponderance of the world's scientists (Yeah, the world is flat!)
He is in favor of:
1. Destruction of Medicare and Medicaid
2. Refers to Social Security as a ponzi scheme (the oldsters are not going to take this very well)
3. English Only Legislation (how well does that play with the immigrant community?)
GOP, if you are going to commit suicide that are many more direct ways to accomplish this.
Don't you know that New Jersey is an azure-blue state, how far do you think that a candidate like that is going to get there?
You said that after the disappointing 2012 election season that you would mend fences with the constituencies that contributed to your loss. Well, smooth move, ex-lax, obviously the lesson has not been learned
Your thoughts?Strychnine is more like it! My thoughts: if one votes for Steve Lonegan, be prepared to pay the dire consequences. No one in his/her logical perceptive mind would vote for a person who will eventually damage New Jersey and regress it to a more repressive era. Politics is becoming more harrowing each day. Smart people had better become aware and carefully study and analyze their prospective candidate. America cannot afford to get any worse than it is already! If Mr. Lonegan is elected, New Jersey is going to regress to the DARK AGES. However, we shall see how this goes. The Republican Party as it is now, is a tyrannosaurus on its way to eventual extinction as the antiprogressives it represents.
To be fair, he could lie and make campaign promises based on opinion polls. Then, he could refuse to adhere to the campaign promises once elected; we've seen all kinds of candidates do that sort of thing. Instead, he's being true to his beliefs even though anybody with sense can see that it probably won't endear him to the electorate within that area. I'll give him credit where credit is due. You might not like his ideas, but he's not being a phony politician who says what voters want to hear just to garner votes. In my book, that makes him a lot more honest than the average politician in Congress. That may or may not be worth a vote, but it is worth something.
Yes, it's bad news for the GOP.I hear you, but the GOP needs to be a bit more pragmatic and less hooked on ideological purity. This the wrong man at the wrong time in the wrong place. Where is the RNC, getting involved to properly vet candidates for their ticket?
The GOP would do well to listen to Chris Christie, as to the need to win elections first and foremost. Why waste time and energy getting into a race where you are most probably going to be defeated? Who has the money and resources for this folly?
The GOP needs to find a way to make its beliefs and platform palatable to a larger swath of the electorate, ignoring the problem and placing band-aids over it will not do. There is simply no getting around that.
It is long past time for the GOP to write off New Jersey and throw up only token resistance. Perhaps Lonegan is that token. Most of what he is saying resonates with the bulk of the countries Republican voters, just not Jersites, Jersians?
Ironically, the country is doomed now so all of this is merely an exercise in futility.You're right about that, but why not run a more moderate candidate? Christie won in blue New Jersey, so it is not impossible for the GOP to be able to compete.
Lonegan is an extremist, you can't be serious that he represents the mainstream of the GOP? There was a GOP fellow by the name of Ken Buck that ran for a senate seat in Colo with similar credentials and was defeated soundly.
If this is what the GOP offers than it is in trouble, and if your fear is domination by the left, that fear is valid.Will get back to you on this one. Needs more time than I have right now, but I am thinking about it.
I would call Christie Democrat-light but one sees the irony. Why bother running anyone at all in New Jersey, New York, Illinois, California, Maryland and just a very few others? Let the Democrats succeed like they are in those states and did in Detroit.
Lonegan is hardly an extremist. If taken one at a time the majority of his positions are the same positions held by most Americans.
Let me reiterate, the country is doomed so all of this is an exercise in futility."Why bother running anyone at all in New Jersey, New York, Illinois, California, Maryland and just a very few others?"
I would not just say 'a few', but many, and increasing all the time. I see a lot more traditional red states turning blue rather than the other way around. Colo, North Carolina, Florida, Iowa, just to name a few, with the proponderance in population, the Dems are going to be hard to beat.
I dont think that most Americans would prohibit abortion against the objections of the mother in cases of rape and incest. Where did you see that?
But if you think that the country is doomed, then it really doesn't matter how the chips fall for you does it?I would not just say 'a few', but many - this is not reflected in state races over the last several election cycles with states that haven't had Republican majorities in their legislatures since the last Democrat Depression have shrinking Democrat minorities.
I dont think that most Americans would prohibit abortion against the objections of the mother in cases of rape and incest. Where did you see that? . - the better question is where did you see I said anything of the kind? Not a word by me can be construed as to mean that - but assume what you will.
But if you think that the country is doomed, then it really doesn't matter how the chips fall for you does it? - The country is doomed because Americans have accepted the idea that the role of government is to take the product of one man's efforts and award it to another who did nothing for it except own a vote and claim a need. We now believe that it is unnecessary to work for a living but rather we have the right to claim some one else owes us a living.
That is why we are DOOMED, we are becoming a nation of leftists, despite not believing in leftist ideas. Social Security, Medicare, Medicaid, the entire entitlement state, college finances and now universal health care are all redistributionist and therefore damaging to the notion that one owns what ones works for. We are accepting the idea that government has the responsibility and right to take from one and give to another." Most of what he is saying resonates with the bulk of the countries Republican voters, just not Jersites, Jersians?"
Retief, did you not say that?
Then you say:
"I dont think that most Americans would prohibit abortion against the objections of the mother in cases of rape and incest. Where did you see that?
So you want to know 'where did I see that', check your posts.
The bulk of the country's GOP voters is not 'the country'.
I will take my chances with the Left over the political Right anytime and it appears like most of my fellow citizens, at least when looking at voting patterns, say the same. Is that the basis of your 'doomsday scenario'? As for us all being 'doomed', I am content to just wait and see.......
But, I will acknowledge that your point in the last paragraph about the redistribution of wealth is a concern, but whatever remedy the rightwinger proposes will go too far the other way, making slaves of what are now middle class and working class people, at the mercy of their vaunted corporate power structure and its endless greed. The people will not tolerate it and this is why your desired vision for the nation must NEVER come to fruitiondoes not equal all or even equal one specific position you choose - perhaps a little reading on the definition of generalization would help.
How can one "go too far" in permitting a man to retain the product of his efforts over the forced redistribution of that product through the police power of the government to another who did nothing to earn it but own a vote and claim a need? Isn't the only possible too far in that the purchase of that vote with confiscated property?How can one "go too far" in permitting a man to retain the product of his efforts over the forced redistribution of that product through the police power of the government to another who did nothing to earn it but own a vote and claim a need? Isn't the only possible too far in that the purchase of that vote with confiscated property?
Yeah, I heard you the first time. You have a problem paying taxes? Where is the line drawn with you kind of people? You want all the benifits of living in a safe ethical society without acknowledging the cost. So, who is making you pay taxes for you share of the freight? So the elitism rears its head so now, those that YOU figure are unproductive should be deprived of the vote, that is what you are saying, isn't it. According to the GOP, the only 'productive people' are old white southern males, and hopefully many of them are not on social security, so I guess that I better add 'wealthy' to the description. Those vaunted coporatists as self made producers that you put on a pedestal are not worthy of your continued adoration. Horatio Alger has been dead for a long time.Are you retrograde enough to want to go back to the days when only men with property could vote? I would not hold my breath waiting for it.I don't have problem paying taxes. I do have a problem giving over half of my pittance of an income to the government. That's greed, on the government's part. By the time I pay federal tax, state tax, sales tax, land tax, air quality tax, water quality tax, utility taxes, and about a hundred more taxes, the government "earns" more of my income than I do. That is WRONG.
Ok, I cant argue with that, they may be too high. We can all say that but where do we cut? Obama offered to cut a great deal on entitlement programs, but we are not going GUT anything.The right seems to want to preserve preference and privilege for the wealthy and retain bloated military spending. I do not think we are in disagreement about the need to rein in outrageous tax rates, but whose ox is gored? We going to have to have a balanced approach, with neither side getting everything that it wants. This means compromise, is the GOP listening?
The whole thing is out of control, some areas more than others. Of course, I'd like to cut entitlements, but I'm okay with cutting the entire bloated budget. Entitlements wouldn't be enough.
Obama was proposing that everybody gets their ox gored a bit. Either side is not going to allow their interests to be butchered as part of the process. Thus the need for compromise and the GOP always seems to be the most reluctant to do so.
Sequestration was Obama's idea and everyone's ox did, indeed, get gored, yet since the beginning of sequestration Obama blamed Republicans for exactly what you are asking for. Obama has introduced budgets to Congress over and over and has had them rejected outright by his own Senate Democrats. Perhaps the paucity of ideas isn't merely a Republican problem.
Whoa there Cred, take a deep breath, relax, now think a minute about what you said.
Perhaps you should draw a few lines also.
Like between corporatist and self-made producers - I don't think they are one and the same.
And to what do you attribute your GOP definition of "productive people." other than your own impressions? "Old white Southern males?" Come on, that was old twenty years ago.
But the worst is your feeling that the "Horatio Alger" American dream is dead. Come on buddy, draw another line - one between your anger at corporatism and "all the other businesses in America," once again they are not the one and the same.
Horatio Alger is very much alive. Every time a cook opens his own restaurant, a mechanic his own garage, a hair dresser her own salon, a pizza delivery guy his own franchise, etc. etc. etc. to the tune of over half a million new small businesses in 2011. That's a lot of Horatios.
And those Horatios account for this:
Small businesses comprise what share of the U.S. economy?
Small businesses make up:
99.7 percent of U.S. employer firms,
64 percent of net new private-sector jobs,
49.2 percent of private-sector employment,
42.9 percent of private-sector payroll,
46 percent of private-sector output,
43 percent of high-tech employment,
98 percent of firms exporting goods,
and
33 percent of exporting value.
Source: U.S. Census Bureau, SUSB, CPS; International Trade Administration; Bureau of Labor statistics, BED; Advocacy-funded research, Small Business GDP: Update 2002-2010, www.sba.gov/advocacy/7540/42371
.
ps. Small business owners overwhelmingly categorize themselves as more ideologically conservative than liberal - yet even in these heavily taxed and heavily Democrat influenced times, they still start over 500,000 new businesses a year, if that isn't following a dream I would be hard put to find a better definition.
GAGA,Yes, I do draw a line between self-made entrepreneurs and corporatists as you and I both understand them. They are not one in the same. The need to make that clarification is important, thanks.
As for the GOP impression of 'productive people', it is not so much my impression. That is what Mitt Romney told us, the GOP idea of 'productive people' were, the other 53 percent of the population that were not held in derision by him during his secret confessional meeting. Of course, the Anglo power structure, the audience in the room, are the people to whom he makes his case. Unfortunately for him, he was overheard... So who do you think constitutes the power structure that Bill O'Reiley has said countless times, is under assault? Which is the only primary demographic that more overwhelmingly support GOP candidates all the time, what do the statisticians suggest?
Ok, GA, reports of the death of the spirit of Horatio Alger are greatly exaggerated. But, it is gravely injured. You can thank the GOP for that as well. Earlier, you mentioned the distinction that I should make between corporatists and self made entrepreneurs, well I am making that distinction here and so does the GOP. A couple of years ago, I recall the GOP kicking up a storm when Obama proposed a tax cut that would benefit the middle class including self starters that did not have incomes similar to Donald Trump. They resisted, saying that if their small constituency did not receive the breaks, no one would. Another clever ruse of the GOP to give the public the appearance that they champion the cause of small business and the spirit of Horatio Alger but nothing could be further from the truth. While Alger is not dead in spirit, we do know who it is that has designs on his demise....Try this GOP description from radio host Jerry Doyle - :
"Too Right, Too white, and Too Uptight"
I can see that as an apt description for most of the GOP's positions.
But Cred, the Romney reference... come on, that's a Dem talking point that is as bogus as Palin's "Death Panels." and you know it. As bad as his mindset may be, when the whole recorded conversation was played it was obvious the context of the comment was referring to "voters he would never reach - no matter what. Of course, by the time he finished trying to explain why he would never reach that 47%; they don't pay income tax - so GOP tax cuts won't register, they receive some type of government entitlement program distribution, so any GOP effort to cut entitlement programs will take money away from them, - by the time he finished, he had his foot in his mouth up to the knee,...
but even so, I don't hear what the Dem talking points about the video say he said. Just because something doesn't sound good doesn't mean it can't be true. And do you think it is only Repubs that tailor their message to their audience - in a private setting like this? Hell, most politicians, (of all stripes), do it in public - from one whistle-stop to the next.
Don't make me guess, what is the Bill O'Reilly GOP "under assault power structure" you refer to?
As for the rest of your comment... as for small businesses and entrepreneurs - I think the Democrats might have a shot at them if they weren't so hell bent on higher taxation and obvious wealth redistribution. The GOP marriage with BIG Money is no secret, and provides more than enough reasons to criticize the party.
GA"But Cred, the Romney reference... come on, that's a Dem talking point that is as bogus as Palin's "Death Panels." and you know it."
No, GA, I don't know it. There was never any corroborative evidence for anything Palin had to say. What Romney said compliments every other attidtude of the party from Romney hiding income tax information to what I mentioned before about an inordinate concern about a small swath of the population in disregard to the majority.
Romney just reaffirmed what we already know the GOP to stand for... They willingly define themselves as plutocrats, not exactly interested in the concerns of 'plain folks'. Either there is a gross misunderstanding or the GOP has one hell of image problem. Why would Romney assume that he would not reach the other 47%? There are other issues that motivate one to vote conservative outside of whether or not they pay income taxes. It was a presumption that revealed his true values and the fact he was always 'out of touch', with his simplistic view of the elctorate. It was a poorly conceived broad brush statement and one that contributed to his losing the election. Yes, all politicians do it, but if you are going to say controversial things, you better not get caught or be ready with an explanation. It ain't like the old days, cameras and microphones are everywhere, recording.
Bill O'Reilly said that the Obama win was an assualt on the White Power Structure, please do not take offense, but that is what he said, I am sure you could find the clip on You-Tube. So, what is this 'structure' that he talks about, is it the same people that are the darling children of the GOP power base?
While there are several examples of O'Reilly point of view, here is a link to just one
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ql5gzJBcWTc
The matter is the fact that we mismanange taxpayer funds. For me the wealth redistribution issue not so clear as the need for everyone to contribute fairly and proportionately. The GOP has spun the issue to give the appearance that Dems are against small business entrepreneurs. But as I mentioned in a previous post, the GOP are not allied with anyone that is not corporatist, using all the so called social issues and doublespeak ideological stances as a ruse to attract those that have no stake in supporting this constituency. But time and support under those 'old tricks' are running out. Anyone who is wedded to the needs of 'big money' cannot be an ally of mine.I won't continue to beat on the dead horse issue of Romney's famous 47% blurb. I think you are more right than wrong, and the point(s) I disagree with are apparently a matter of opinion.
Of course no offense was taken. Don't you think the crux of the issue was just as O'Reilly said? Although, my take on the term "white power structure" is more a political reference than a racial one.
And maybe that power structure needs to be assaulted.
Oh no Cred, not the "fair share" mantra again. Tell you what, I have been such an agreeable sort so far, I'll just pass on your remaining paragraph. Except for this effort to show the fallacy of using percentages as the only benchmark for judgement and proportionality.
Regarding percentages;
In the restaurant business we use them as benchmarks too. Food cost percentages, labor cost percentages, fixed overhead, etc. etc.
ps. the numbers are vague recollections and guesses used as examples
But we also use "contributory dollars" as a benchmark for decision making. It goes like this; is it smarter to gear-up to sell 500 sodas for $1, at a 10% food cost, or 100 steak dinners for $20 at 40% food cost?
It would seem obvious that a restaurant owner would want sell stuff that had the lowest food cost percentage, but in the above example all the work to pour 500 hundred sodas produces $450 gross profit, yet the steaks take much less work, have a much higher food cost, but return a gross profit of $1200 - that's the truth of contributory dollar decision making vs. percentages decision making.
So what about Romney's 16% $6.2 million dollar actual "contributory" tax payment vs. Joe Blow's 28% tax rate that due to income adjustments turns into a tax refund.
Is the percentage comparison more important and pertinent than the reality of $6.2 million paid vs. $x refunded? Sounds like a "fair share" to me.
GA
GA, when it comes to tax policy and such you probably are more knowledgeable, so I know better. BUT, my only concern is if the GOP is in favor of reducing taxes they could have gone along with the cuts for the vast majority instead of holding out for breaks for the aristocrats. That, for me, is the test. How about the payroll tax cut? I recall that their attitude about that was unfavorable as well.
By all means, GA, we both know that O'Reilly's reference was not racial. But when one delves into what that means it is clear that he did not have to refer to a racial reference for us all to determine that he meant the status quo. I believe corporate CEO's are a good example of what could be described as the 'White Power Structure". There have only been 13 black CEO among the Fortune 500 since 1999. There is a 3.6% female CEO percentage from the same group. This is certainly part of "the status quo" that O'Reilly is really refering to with his reference. While the term is not really racist in its intent, upon closer analysis, that turns out to be the outcome in fact. Most of us know that, too.hmmm... looks like you were responding to another post Cred, but I'll go along.
I'm not a proponent of blanket tax cuts for the rich, nor am I in favor of tax increases on them either.
As for opposing tax cuts for the "vast majority," well, if I remember correctly, conservative opposition was to the tax increases on the wealthy that were tied to those "middle-class" tax cuts. So it might not be entirely accurate to say Republicans/Conservatives were against them.
Which brings us to the payroll tax cut which you appear to support. I could support it too if it was packaged with SS reform. Once more, relying on memory, I think the Republican opposition you infer was mostly from newly elected "tea party" Republicans that were opposed to anything that increased government debt - which the payroll tax cut would do.
Generally speaking, the way the system is currently set-up, it could be viewed as "workers supporting workers" - sounds like a reasonable idea. (lets leave aside the discussions about the programs legitimacy, solvency and future viability - for now) But, if you reduce the funding without reducing the payouts, then there is only one place to get the shortfall - which changes the concept from an earned benefit to an entitlement benefit. Are you OK with that?
As for your description of the referenced 'white power structure," I think you are right. Also, I wouldn't dwell too much on the CEO aspect. They might be the face, but I would put more emphasis on "BIG MONIED" interests, because CEOs have bosses too.
GA
A friend of mine grew up in Vancouver BC to middle school. When her father was transferred to Montreal, which is a French speaking providence, she was expected to learn French. She wasn't allowed to speak English anywhere at school. Many college students pay big bucks going to other countries for language immersion. The only country that doesn't think language immersion is the best way to learn a language is America, Being forced to know the language helps an immigrant .
English only isn't such a bad thing.I dunno, Tireless, it seems when I went to Europe much signage was up accomodating several languages. But, you are right language immersion is the best way. On our planned move to Panama, that is the approach we are going to take in our attempt to master the Spanish language. However, there should never be a penalty levied on any citizen in regards to his or her rights and privileges as a citizen just because he or she is not proficient in the English language. We all have to learn as part of the process. Government sponsored approaches like make this process a mandate and I don't like the concept.
I am disgusted by the Republican party and their minions of stupid middle class followers who vote against their own best interests for candidates like Steve Lonegan. They are systematically destroying the country and the viability of the once workable two party system of checks and balances. It's like a sadistic special effects cartoon playing in a never ending loop. It's repulsive and treasonous.
It's interesting to hear you say that the republican party has "minions of stupid middle class followers." Who supports the democrats then? If rich people and "minions of stupid middle class followers" support republicans, you'd think that the republicans could control all three branches of government. It doesn't seem to be working that way. Could it be that "minions of stupid middle class followers" also vote democrat?
Cory Booker is going to be hard to beat, period. He's popular and young and fresh. A true rising star.
We can't say categorically that a Republican COULDN"T win in NJ. (Even though it's highly unlikely).
But all other issues being equal -- not that I'm saying they are -- Lonegan's stance on climate change will not win him many votes. Two words: Hurricane Sandy.
Lonegan's city, Bogota, New Jersey is not near the coast.Sandy was not a hurricane when it made land fall, it was a tropical storm. Its arrival also coincided with a Nor'easter resulting in an unusual blending of two different storms. Global warming is unmitigated and undiluted garbage but ignorance will embrace anything.
http://news.nationalgeographic.com/news … te-change/
Superstorm. That's kind of a clue that we haven't seen anything quite like it before, dontcha think?
I'm sure the people of New Jersey are comforted by your analysis of the actual weather phenomena that coalesced to form Superstorm Sandy.
Unmitigated and undiluted garbage.
Ok, so you don't care about the polar bears. But what about these facts?
From www.edf.org/climate/climate-change-impacts:
Extreme weather will become more frequent—and more dangerous.
The World Meteorological Organization reported that 2000-2009 was the hottest decade on record, with eight of the hottest 10 years having occurred since 2000.
It's not just the heat that poses threats. Scientists say global warming is speeding up the cycling of water between the ocean, atmosphere and land, resulting in more intense rainfall and droughts at the same time across the globe.
•
A surge in wildfires
Hot, dry conditions create a tinderbox ideal for wildfires. This could have a devastating impact on America's Southwest.
•
Increased flooding
The 2007 IPCC report concludes that intense rain events have increased in frequency during the last 50 years and that human-induced global warming has been a factor.
•
Increased drought
There have also been increased periods of drought, particularly in famine-stricken areas of Africa and Asia. According to the National Center for Atmospheric Research, the percentage of Earth's surface suffering drought has more than doubled since the 1970s. In Africa alone, the IPCC projects that between 75 and 250 million people will be exposed to increased water stress due to climate change.
•
More intense hurricanes
As the oceans warm, scientists predict that hurricane intensity could increase. The associated storm surge poses particular risk to low-lying coastal cities like Miami, Charleston (SC) and Wilmington (NC).
Threats to human health
A warming planet threatens people worldwide, causing deaths, spreading insect-borne diseases and exacerbating respiratory illnesses. Extreme weather will also put more people in harm's way.
The World Health Organization believes that even the modest increases in average temperature that have occurred since the 1970s are responsible for at least 150,000 extra deaths a year—a figure that will double by 2030, according to WHO's conservative estimate.
•
Devastating heat waves
Recent studies show extreme heat events that now occur once every 20 years will occur about every other year in much of the country, if current trends continue.
In 1995, Chicago suffered a heat wave that killed more than 700 people. Chicagoans could experience that kind of relentless heat up to three times a year by 2100.
•
Spread of disease
Diseases such as malaria and dengue fever could become more difficult to control in areas where it's currently too cold for them to spread year-round. The malaria parasite itself is generally limited to certain areas by cooler winter temperatures since it is not able to grow below 16°C. As temperatures rise, diseases can grow and disease vectors (the carriers that transmit disease, such as mosquitoes) will mature more rapidly and have longer active seasons.
•
Worsening air quality
More hot days mean ripe conditions for ground-level ozone, or smog, which forms when pollutants from tailpipes and smokestacks mix in sunny, stagnant conditions. Higher temperatures cause higher emissions of one type of pollutant, namely hydrocarbons and other volatile organic compounds, as well as speeding up the chemical reactions that form ozone smog.
Smog triggers asthma attacks and worsens other breathing problems. The number of Americans with asthma has more than doubled over the past two decades to 20 million. Continued warming will only worsen the problem.Superstorm is a media word not a meteorological description.
In reply to an earlier comment that you made:
Gee, Retief, I wasn't born yesterday. If I recall, all of this started because neither side was willing to compromise on the budget and the sequestration was to be the dooms day device that would have forced the parties to cooperate prior to its planned enactment and come to the table, but as always the stubborness of the GOP knew no bounds and they decided to take us over the cliff.
So blaming Obama for this is just a red herring, it is as you say 'Speaking Manx to a Mongol?" The GOP are simply bringing up stupid things like defunding Obamacare as a condition to not shutting the Government down as leverage. Wasn't over 40- times they attempted this? The paucity of ideas is, as I said, a GOP exclusive.
Related Discussions
- 50
Don Blankenship, ex-con, GOP senate primary candidate
by G. Diane Nelson Trotter 17 months ago
Why is Blankenship the leading GOP senate primary candidate in West Virginia?According to the polls, Blankenship is ahead of two other GOP candidates. Why?the former chief executive of Massey Energy, served a year in federal prison after being convicted of conspiring to violate mine safety...
- 21
America Votes 2012
by Jo_Goldsmith11 12 years ago
I have been watching the latest on the Republican show down for the upcoming primary. I am unsure as to why we still are getting the same of what put us in the mess we find ourselves in now. Could it be, that Newt or Mitt really want to completly destroy us? Santorum, I have knowledge of when he...
- 76
GOP=RIP how do you ever hope to win with an attitude like this?
by Credence2 3 years ago
A little backgroundhttps://news.yahoo.com/gop-warns-hr-1-c … 43930.htmlI find this more than a bit irritating about Republicans and conservatives generally.If you can't win the hearts and minds of the electorate with your ideas and policies, then your usefulness has come to an end."In...
- 93
Do you plan on voting to re-electing Obama for 2012?
by chanroth 13 years ago
Just happen to read the news today, 67% say they are voting for another candidate, 27% said yes and the rest is not sure. Therefore, what is your opinion, well you vote?
- 76
What Happened To The Democratic Party We Once Knew
by Sharlee 5 weeks ago
What happened to the Democratic Party we once knew? It seems that over the years, the party has shifted, and not in a way that resonates with the people who once felt truly represented by it. In the past, the Democratic Party prided itself on standing up for working-class Americans, fighting for...
- 26
Lincoln Freed The Slaves. Why do Blacks generally vote Democrat?
by Charles James 21 months ago
I am not an American, but what goes on in the USA is important to the world.Lincoln was a Republican and freed the slaves. One would expect black Americans to generally vote Republican. But they don't.How did this come about?