jump to last post 1-6 of 6 discussions (51 posts)

The PEOPLE Have SPOKEN!

82
gmwilliamsposted 2 years ago

As a result of the Republicans being the majority in the senate after this mid-term election, do you believe that America will get much better with necessary reforms in jobs in addition to tougher measures being implemented regarding social programs and toughening of the ISIS/ebola/illegal immigration issues? Or do you believe that since the Republicans will be the majority in the senate, that America will regress in terms of women's reproductive freedoms, the gains made by the LBGT community, health care, and other reformations?
reply report
1. 60
  Florida Economistposted 2 years ago in reply to this
  I think that, other than the race for the White House in 2016 starting in January, not much else is going to change. Republicans have control of Congress yes, but they don't have enough votes to override a veto, so not much is really going to get done.
  
  The biggest difference will be that the President won't have Harry Reid running interference for him in the Senate, so he, and Senate Democrats, are actually going to have to go on record on some of the issues they've been avoiding so far.
  
  To quote The Who: "Meet the new boss, same as the old boss".
  reply report
  82
  GA Andersonposted 2 years ago in reply to this
  "Democrats, are actually going to have to go on record on some of the issues they've been avoiding so far."
  
  Excellent point! Whether the Repubs will do better is debatable, but I think their control of the Senate will at least force both parties to take more ownership of many issues that have been flying under the radar of public examination.
  
  GA
  reply report
2. 72
  cjhunsingerposted 2 years ago in reply to this
  gm
  How does this vote have anything to do with ," women's reproductive freedoms, the gains made by the LBGT community"?
  We have a national debt of $18 trillion dollars, the country is more divided then it has ever been, our military is depleted and demoralized, 20 million Americans are unemployed, under-employed, welfare and food stamps now feed more people than than does gainful employment, Russia is the new Hitler, China begins to expand in the South China Sea, ISIS runs unabated, our borders are like sieves, Obama functions outside of the Constitution, the Admin speaks with racial overtones, endears a deserter, lies and dismisses any criticism as racist. The list goes on. But birth control pills are right up there, as a concern?
  I don't know of what benefit this vote will have, perhaps some semblance of sanity.
  reply report
  82
  gmwilliamsposted 2 years ago in reply to this
  There will be those who adamantly portend that the Republican senate will suggest policies that will negatively impact on women's reproductive rights and freedom e.g. abortion and other technologies. They will further assert that the Republican senate will revert the gains made in the LBGT community, namely same sex marriage. These pundits decry this, proclaiming that the GOP will take America back to the 50s. They maintain that America will NOW become worse as a result of the Republican senate. They refuse to see the main issues such as the amnesty programs regarding the illegals, the high unemployment, and the ISIS issue.
  reply report
  76
  rhamsonposted 2 years ago in reply to this
  They still don't have enough to override an Obama veto. So the divide continues until 2016 when a new bunch of criminals sell us the same crap and we re elect them to do it. What is more disturbing is the faith people have in this broken system.
  reply report
  72
  cjhunsingerposted 2 years ago in reply to this
  gm
  The 50's were great. There was real music and women were having sex. I know that to be true. Women do not have a right to sex and reproduction too, is not a right. Men do not have a right to sex and nobody cares about their reproductive rights.
  As for the LGBT's, I don't know what the hell that means and as far as I am concerned keep it to your self and as far as same sex marriage goes, that is a contradiction in terms.
  From what I have seen and heard from these advocates, perhaps, not all, but America must become subservient to their narcissistic desires and definitions. Live your life according to your own comfort zone and don't force it on others or try to redefine America into something that it is not----going forward.
  reply report
3. 81
  Don Wposted 2 years ago in reply to this
  Political influence has long since been bought and sold, so there has been no real shift in power. It remains in the hands of the highest bidder. Nothing to see here . . .
  reply report
4. 60
  retief2000posted 2 years ago in reply to this
  The misconception is that the Democrats are a monolith. Two Democrat Senators have already expressed the idea of Caucusing with the Republicans. Now that Harry Reid is no longer the Majority Leader and therefore the scheduler of Senate votes, it is far more likely that legislation will pass the Senate with bipartisan support. If Obama vetoes a bill that Democrat Senators believe benefits them with their constituents, even though it has broad Republican support, are far more likely to side with the Senate than with a LAME DUCK PRESIDENT.
  
  Obama may veto some legislation, but his vetoes will be vulnerable to the realities of his disappearing authority and the obvious voice of the American voter.
  reply report
89
Stacie Lposted 2 years ago
It's hard to decide which side will actually work for the people of this country,or for the billionaire backers.
reply report
1. 95
  wildernessposted 2 years ago in reply to this
  *shrug* In very general terms, one party will do it's best to convert the country into a nation of sheeple, forever dependent on the largess of their politicians for the bread on their table. The other will do it's best to convert the country into a nation of sheeple, forever giving up their own (and other's) freedom to conform to a religion based false morality.
  
  Neither one has the needs of the people OR the nation in mind.
  reply report
  76
  rhamsonposted 2 years ago in reply to this
  You speak the truth.
  reply report
2. 72
  cjhunsingerposted 2 years ago in reply to this
  Stacie
  What does working for the people mean? Are you saying that because one is a billionaire he opposes the Constitution. I believe the Constitution should be the first priority, not a cell phone, health care or the wallet of the wealthy. Would you disagree?
  reply report
  89
  Stacie Lposted 2 years ago in reply to this
  I agree with "I believe the Constitution should be the first priority"
  All the people, not for the interests of the few with deep pockets.
  reply report
90
wrenchBiscuitposted 2 years ago
To suggest that America might get better is to suggest that a cancer that continues to grow and destroy it's host can somehow be persuaded to self-destruct, or at least adopt a kinder gentler approach to corruption. As long as America "is" America nothing significant will change for the poor and the working class. What else could anyone expect from colonialist nations founded upon the bedrock of slavery and genocide. It is fascinating that after over 200 years of the rich getting richer, while the majority continues to struggle, that anyone would still take this dog and pony show seriously.

Within a tyrannical capitalist system,voting rights and free speech are insidious tools of oppression, as they create an illusion that pacifies the ignorant. The people can speak all they want, but the Industrial Military Complex will continue with business as usual.
reply report
75
crazyhorsesghostposted 2 years ago
They can crow all they want but American is in serious trouble and electing a majority of Republicans or Democrats is not going to really change anything. We must work for America first and to hell with the rest of the world.

Were locking more people up in prisons than almost any other country. Many of these are locked up for drug crimes and this should be stopped. Marijuana should be made 100 percent legal in America. The time is long past that this should have been done. Its already been done in a few states.

The morals of our youth has gone to hell in a hat basket. We must wake up and demand real change in America.

We need strict term limits in the Senate and Congress. We need to do away with career politicians. Career politicians and political infighting ruined America. We must be willing to change things as they have never been changed before.

It may take revolution to return America to the great country she once was.

Maybe we need a one term six year president.

We need to make sure that everyone in America has a bed to lay down in at night and food to eat before they go to bed at night.

America needs real change that is going to bring about radical change to America. If it takes a revolution so be it. We need to change the schools and let children learn.

As a native American is is time for radical social change in America, We must stand up as a American people and demand revolution and radical change.

We can not let things go on the way they have or we will never change America back to the great country she once was. Wake up America its much later than you think. Wake up and demand political, social, and economic change. If it takes a revolution than let it begin here.
reply report
1. 88
  Kathryn L Hillposted 2 years ago in reply to this
  The revolution needs to involve the taping up of the original Constitution. It is our only hope and we have just about ripped it to shreds.
  Politicians must listen to the people. The people must have something for the politicians to listen to:
  
  "Keep our taxes low, keep regulations limited, let us tap into our natural resources, and respect our liberty.
  Protect our homeland, be careful with our money, stop with the bailouts, back room deals and loopholes.
  Follow the laws, enforce the boundaries which must be in place to maintain a democratic republic. And do not allow/promote any sort of voter fraud.
  Stand by your principals and care about US."
  reply report
  95
  wildernessposted 2 years ago in reply to this
  Unfortunately, the mantra of the American citizen has become "gimmee", not responsibility of our leaders. Gimmee money, gimmee food, gimmee health care, gimmee education. Gimmee, gimmee, not use my money wisely or protect the nation. Just gimmee.
  reply report
  76
  rhamsonposted 2 years ago in reply to this
  The clowns that are in there will never do as WE wish. We keep re-electing them and expect different results. That is the definition of insanity.
  reply report
2. 72
  cjhunsingerposted 2 years ago in reply to this
  crazyhorse
  
  I don't think that Indians are native to America, as they walked here from Siberia at the close of the last great ice age.. To my knowledge, the only native peoples are our cousins who never left Africa. Indians have been here longer, but have no claim to a native land. Correct me if I am wrong.
  You seem to promote some sort of socialism, again correct me if I am wrong, but I don't think that is a part of something called individual freedom.
  There are some things that you mention that I agree with, but from a different perspective.
  reply report
  90
  wrenchBiscuitposted 2 years ago in reply to this
  I am sure your apologist rhetoric helps many to mitigate in their minds the horrors of colonialism. Since as you say, "We walked here from Siberia", you imply that any criminal act committed against our people is justified according to Manifest Destiny, including theft of our land and resources, and outright genocide. Why should anyone apologize,feel guilty, or give it all back, when it didn't belong to us in the first place? Right?
  
  Using your logic, it follows that the Tsalagi,Haudenosuanee,Mexica, Mapuche, and any other legitimate nation has the right to dispossess any white European American. We also have the right to utterly destroy any squatter colonialist nation, since the European is also not native to this continent. Of course, what is now considered to be Manifest Destiny, would be considered terrorism should the shoe be on the other foot.
  reply report
  95
  wildernessposted 2 years ago in reply to this
  The logic you find so despicable seems to be the one used when you declare the land to be yours. It doesn't sound so wonderful when applied to the actions of the peoples described as "yours", does it?
  reply report
  90
  wrenchBiscuitposted 2 years ago in reply to this
  Perhaps I missed something, and if so please refresh my memory. Where in the historical record can we find evidence that any Indigenous nation of this continent ever invaded the European continent? Where is the story of how we committed genocide against the European people? Where is the evidence that we fell upon Europe like a plague; raping, and pillaging? If we invaded and conquered the European continent, why do they still speak German, English, and Spanish, instead of Nahuatl,or Tsalagi? Why is the European culture still intact throughout the European continent?
  
  Of course, these are rhetorical questions. The Indigenous people of this continent have never invaded Europe. We have never purposely infected the European with a biological weapon like Smallpox. We have never forced them to speak our languages or adopt our culture.We have never stolen their resources and then claimed them as our own. As far as aggressive actions we have taken on this continent during the last 500 years: A majority of the so-called massacres of whites on this continent since 1492 were defensive actions. As they say here in Florida, "We were standing our ground".
  
  We were not the greedy rapists who came preaching Jesus while searching for silver and gold. Consequently, your statement is pure nonsense. You have attempted to make an argument based on a premise that has no basis in reality; a fiction you have created. In the words of the immortal Led Zeppelin:
  
  You need coolin'
  Baby I'm not foolin'
  I'm gonna say it yeah
  Go back to schoolin'
  reply report
  95
  wildernessposted 2 years ago in reply to this
  I HOPE it was rhetorical: hard to imagine a stone age people crossing an ocean in order to attack a civilization a thousand years more advanced. But of course no one ever indicated any such thing - only that the tribes then in existence were NOT the original "settlers" but only the latest in a line of conquering societies.
  reply report
  90
  wrenchBiscuitposted 2 years ago in reply to this
  I understand a lot of people prefer eating at McDonalds, or Burger King. It's quick, it's easy, and it's superficial. I also understand that it is important for you to have the last word.
  reply report
  95
  wildernessposted 2 years ago in reply to this
  Don't want to discuss it, eh? OK - I'll leave you with the last word.
  reply report
  75
  crazyhorsesghostposted 2 years ago in reply to this
  No I'm not promoting socialism but I am saying close the borders and don't let in one more person that we should have to support.
  
  Babies born to people who are not citizens should not be automatic citizens just because they are born on American soil. That was one of the dumbest things ever done.
  
  We spend billions over seas that should be spent here in the USA. Our roads and bridges are about to fall down. The next 25 years is going to see a real problem.
  
  With term limits we don't have career politicians. Career politicians have helped to ruin this country.
  
  Illegal Immigration has helped to ruin this country. Close the borders and put out any illegal aliens.
  
  Create a real living wage that people can truly live on.
  
  There are many things that can be done to save America. And believe me America is in serious trouble.
  
  I don't smoke or use marijuana but it should be legal and we should tax it. In all 50 states. This money should be used here in America.
  
  We should not send one more dime out of this country as long as their is any problems here in America.
  
  We must restore the American Dream that once did exist here in America.
  reply report
  95
  wildernessposted 2 years ago in reply to this
  Out of curiosity, why should marijuana be taxed at all? Just another way to force a small segment of the population to pay for what others want? Or would it be set aside to counter any medical problems society decides to pick up for the smokers (like cigarette or alcohol taxes aren't)?
  reply report
  60
  retief2000posted 2 years ago in reply to this
  A luxury consumables tax isn't a bad idea, if it replaces more onerous taxes.
  
  Luxury means that these things are not necessities.
  Consumable means they would still require producers.
  Replacing another tax, say the ridiculous property tax, might make this a good idea.
  
  Since the consumption of luxuries, like tobacco, alcohol and marijuana, are 100% voluntary, this is clearly the best kind of tax, a voluntary one.
  reply report
  72
  cjhunsingerposted 2 years ago in reply to this
  reply report
  59
  Jacquelyn fullerposted 2 years ago in reply to this
  Yes, I believe in the american dream, most of us are immigrants from another country who came here either for slavery purpose or to start a new life in america. When Christopher Columbus and the pilgrims set out on their journey they came to america and became friends with the natives of america whom they called the Indian people. The native of america welcome them with open arms sharing the land, they never expected for their(our) country would be destroyed by racism, pollution and drugs. But the idea was to live peacefully in a country to build encouragement, religion, new homes etc... I remember reciting the pledge of allegiance as a child and it spoke as this " I pledge allegiance to the flag of the United States of America and to the republic for which it stands one nation under God with liberty and justice for ALL.."
  reply report
  90
  wrenchBiscuitposted 2 years ago in reply to this
  You have suggested that the idea of Columbus and the Pilgrims was to " live peacefully in a country to build encouragement, religion, new homes etc.". Really? Can you please tell me from what book, or from whom you obtained this information?
  reply report
  76
  rhamsonposted 2 years ago in reply to this
  I can't remember if that pledge was written before or after the equal rights amendment was passed.
  reply report
  95
  wildernessposted 2 years ago in reply to this
  The ERA has never been ratified by a sufficient number of states to become a part of the constitution. The fight continues to this day.
  reply report
  76
  rhamsonposted 2 years ago in reply to this
  I am sorry, in my haste to mention the amendment I now remember it was the Civil Rights amendment of which there was three. This is the most pertinent to my post:
  
  15 Amendment XV (the Fifteenth Amendment) of the United States Constitution provides that governments in the United States may not prevent a citizen from voting based on that citizen's race[1], color, or previous condition of servitude (i.e. slavery). It was ratified on February 3, 187O
  
  This was surely written before the Pledge of Allegiance.
  reply report
  95
  wildernessposted 2 years ago in reply to this
  It was, but not by much. The pledge was written and published in 1892, and was changed to include god in the 1950's.
  reply report
59
Jacquelyn fullerposted 2 years ago
I believe that now we as democrats will not get the help we need in order too succeed in these issues. We have to come together as a community to make things happen for us!
reply report
1. 72
  cjhunsingerposted 2 years ago in reply to this
  What are those issues?
  reply report
59
Jacquelyn fullerposted 2 years ago
Yes, I do believe America will get better with jobs but a lot of people need training in the jobs created. Will the republicans provide on-the-job training for people?
reply report
1. 72
  cjhunsingerposted 2 years ago in reply to this
  Where in the Constitution do you find that the federal government has the responsibility and authority to take my money to train someone for a job?
  reply report
  76
  rhamsonposted 2 years ago in reply to this
  In the preamble it states: "We the People of the United States, in Order to form a more perfect Union, establish Justice, insure domestic Tranquility, provide for the common defence, promote the general Welfare, and secure the Blessings of Liberty to ourselves and our Posterity, do ordain and establish this Constitution for the United States of America."
  
  It does not state verbatim that everybody has a right to training and education but it is incumbent upon Congress to provide a climate by which this can happen. Besides that it is in our best interest to have these things happen as it coincides with: 8: To promote the Progress of Science and useful Arts, by securing for limited Times to Authors and Inventors the exclusive Right to their respective Writings and Discoveries
  
  You may not agree with this but it was the intent of the founding fathers to promote growth and prosperity.
  reply report
  72
  cjhunsingerposted 2 years ago in reply to this
  You are right, I do not agree and with your interpretation of the Preamble, which is not the Bill of Rights. With your rendering you could effectively justify a Marxist State. The foundation of America is individual freedom and free enterprise capitalism and your interpretation would nullify both.
  
  "And if the federal government is reduced and reined in line with the limits imposed by the Constitution, the government will be small, will stop interfering with issues it shouldn’t tinker with, the federal budget will be balanced, and most of America’s social problems will be solved, because most of them have resulted from federal interventionist policies. In fact, there are practical and constitutional arguments against every liberal domestic policy.
  So what is the proper role of the federal government?
  The Constitution’s Preamble says the federal government was established (and the Constitution was adopted) to “form a more perfect union, establish Justice, insure domestic Tranquillity, provide for the common defence, promote the general Welfare, and secure the Blessings of Liberty to ourselves and our Posterity.”
  The Constitution’s articles, and the subsequent Amendments, specify the prerogatives of the Feds. They are listed in Article I, Sec. 8; Articles II-V; Amendments XIII-XVI, XIX-XX, XXIII-XXVI. These prerogatives belong to one of the following categories:
  1) Defense, war prosecution, peace, foreign relations, foreign commerce, and interstate commerce;
  2) The protection of citizens’ constitutional rights (e.g the right to vote) and ensuring that slavery remains illegal;
  3) Establishing federal courts inferior to the SCOTUS;
  4) Copyright protection;
  5) Coining money;
  6) Establishing post offices and post roads;
  7) Establishing a national set of universal weights and measures;
  8 ) Taxation needed to raise revenue to perform these essential functions."
  The Constitutional Role of the Federal Government
  Everything else is left to the States and to the people.
  reply report
  76
  rhamsonposted 2 years ago in reply to this
  Your interpretation vs. my interpretation. I have just delivered the words and you the conjecture. You will never diminish the size of the government as both the GOP and Democrats have escalated it over the years. The population has exploded since the Constitution was written and the Supreme Court interprets what it wants to contrary to your or my interpretation. You are fighting windmills my friend. By the way you are held a slave by reducing this to a liberal/conservative based agenda. Just look at the way this last election went is proof enough. With two thirds of the electorate staying home somebody crossed the liberal/conservative bias objectives.
  reply report
  72
  cjhunsingerposted 2 years ago in reply to this
  As an Atheist, I do not qualify as a Conservative. I prefer Constitutionalist and, I believe you are right. The Constitution has been corrupted much as the Ebola virus corrupts and destroys the body.
  reply report
  82
  GA Andersonposted 2 years ago in reply to this
  Do you mean an atheist cannot be a conservative? Is belief in a God now a litmus test for conservative values? I would answer no to both questions.
  
  Why do you feel it necessary to identify yourself as an atheist?
  
  Ga
  reply report
  72
  cjhunsingerposted 2 years ago in reply to this
  That would be my experience. And with reference to the Conservatives that I have met, that would be my experience. I like to make the point that this country was not founded on Judeo/Christian principles, but rather on a philosophy of secularism. This is not embraced by Conservatives, as a matter of fact, they become rather incensed over the notion.
  Anyway I do not like labels and that would include Atheist. If I were to choose a label it would be Sapien, as in a reasoning being, but it becomes bothersome to explain, so Atheist is the path of least resistance,
  Most people, especially here, are blind to the idea that an Atheist can embrace the ideals set forth in the Constitution when, in fact, individual freedom and capitalism are, quite possibly, the only political structure that suits an Atheistic philosophy.
  reply report
  60
  retief2000posted 2 years ago in reply to this
  Well said.
  reply report
  95
  wildernessposted 2 years ago in reply to this
  "Promote the general welfare". An unfortunate phrase, that, that can be (and has been) used to support the federal government doing whatever it wants.
  
  Prohibition was for the "general welfare".
  Slavery was for the "general welfare".
  The 55 mph speed limit was for the "general welfare".
  The tremendous excesses of J Edgar Hoover were for the "general welfare".
  Prohibiting gay marriage is for the "general welfare".
  
  I really don't think that just anything that someone decides is for the "general welfare" is what the writers of the document had in mind. Consider "general" as "national" and you would be closer; those writers were individualists, believing strongly in individual responsibility and effort supporting the nation, not a nanny state or massive control of others through loss of freedom.
  reply report
  76
  rhamsonposted 2 years ago in reply to this
  That is what happens in a democratic/republic. I can't remember but I believe it was Franklin who said democracy is messy. You have just defined what he meant.
  reply report
  60
  retief2000posted 2 years ago in reply to this
  "Democracy is two wolves and a lamb voting on what to have for lunch. Liberty is a well-armed lamb contesting the vote!"
  Ben Franklin
  
  “A democracy is nothing more than mob rule, where fifty-one percent of the people may take away the rights of the other forty-nine.”
  Thomas Jefferson
  
  “Remember, democracy never lasts long. It soon wastes, exhausts, and murders itself. There never was a democracy yet that did not commit suicide.”
  John Adams
  
  “But government in which the majority rule in all cases can not be based on justice, even as far as men understand it.”
  Henry David Thoreau
  reply report
2. 95
  wildernessposted 2 years ago in reply to this
  What's wrong with people providing for themselves, including on-the-job training? We are, after all, not a nation of children always needing someone else to provide for us.
  reply report