Victory Tastes Sour

[Jaskalas]

Two lines of prevailing thought today. That the nation lost hard fought ground to minority hating, wife beating, tea party extremists. Or that the tyrannical dictatorship of the black communist, muslim, space alien has been thwarted by the heroic saviors of small government.

Some folks like to stereotype our posters. Perhaps they think my loyalties 10 years ago mean that I am happy with the election results. That "my" Republicans won election. Did they? I cannot help but think victory tastes sour.

The leadership of this country consists of dogged old men whose life ambition is the accumulation of power, whose contributors own mansions on three continents, and whose investments depend on bailing out the 1% while expecting the rest of the wealth to trickle down. Before you get excited over that trigger phrase, recall that both parties believe they saved us by bailing out Wall Street. They think a bubble inflated stock market is the best invention since their own political party.

Did we forget what Republicans did last time? Massive entitlement expansion, Patriot Act, Iraq, NSA, EPA overreach, push for amnesty. They violated my principles in so many ways that I have voted Republican for President once… and only once.

President Obama needed an extra nudge, an additional check on his executive power. Yet I would not want Republicans to take the Presidency. If they weren’t screwing Obama, they’d be screwing us.

Now I generally identify with them more, but that hinges entirely on the basis of "small government". I hold it for the realization of self determination. For the United States to remain opposite of dictatorial regimes the world over. Our people are free, and I intend to keep it that way. Republicans speak best to this principle. Their actions fall utterly short.

I identify with what they claim to be, not what they actually are. That should sound familiar to Democrats who believed in Obama’s campaign, and then met the real President once he was elected. I saw right through McCain and Romney. Bushites through and through. Who do you think Republicans will nominate in 2016?

Trick question, another Bushite. A Neocon who tells us he’s not afraid to bomb countries and sacrifice Americans. Who is not afraid to attack our liberties or grow the debt to pay off voters and corporate interests. A real "reach across the isle" moderate who is as corrupt as the day is long.

We need a paradigm shift, not just a continuation of the status quo for the past 30 years. Our two incumbent parties switching power means nothing in this regard. Republicans were a problem before, and they’ll be a problem again. It is not enough to simply vote for one or the other – something larger has to happen in American politics.

tl;dr:

• Republicans won, country is still screwed.
• How are we going to change that?

 

[cubby1223]

 

[cubby1223]

The truth as I see it, this election was about the rejection of your "lines of prevailing thought."

 

[cubby1223]

Maybe the Democrats could have done better if they ran on their record, ran on their plans for the future, versus the platform many self-chose to run on: "My opponent is evil, and those who vote for him/her are hateful and deserve to be shunned."

 

[IronWing]

How are we going to change that?

I've harped on it before but to change the current political system we have to change the current political system. Return selection of candidates to the parties. No more government-sponsored primaries. If a party selects whackjob candidates, that party is likely to lose at the polls. Doing away with the primaries ties candidates back to a party's platform. A party can then move in lockstep into office with a clearly articulated agenda and elected officials intent on implementing that agenda or they go off an electoral cliff. Having party members select candidates also puts the average voter, who is not a member of any party, on notice that they can step up to join a party and activily participate or live with the choices offered by those who do.

Ending the primary system breaks the tradition of tribal identification with a particular party among non-party members. Voter registration would no longer include party affiliation questions as government would have no role in party politics. I'd go even further and remove party identifiers from all ballots as they serve no legitimate state function. If voters can't be bothered to learn the candidates then screw 'em.

 

[Newell Steamer]

Liberals don't like an outcome of our government's direction; it's whinege - STFU - and, stop trying to push the liberal agenda on us,...

Conservatives don't like an outcome of our government's direction:
- sue the president
- generate false lies (like death panels)
- declare one's self as a victim (they aren't letting me push my religion,.. I AM BEING OPPRESSED!)
- vilify voter registration (like the GOPer; http://www.msnbc.com/rachel-maddow-...-ferguson-voter-registration-drive-disgusting)

 

[Jaskalas]

The truth as I see it, this election was about the rejection of your "lines of prevailing thought."

My lines of prevailing thought...

This country is too far in debt.
Iraq was a colossal f' up.
Americans need freedom more than the police state "Patriot Act".
The NSA is a gross violation of our civil rights.
The EPA has over stepped its mandate.
Amnesty is an intolerable act.

All things Bush and Republicans did or tried to do, before Obama joined in. When people say Obama is a continuation of the Bush presidency...they aren't kidding.

A Republican victory helps Republican voters on these issues... how?

 

[cubby1223]

The message is very simple. The party in power cannot wield a platform of hatred against the people of the minority. They cannot demonize them and expect to maintain control.

My gosh, here in Illinois we had a $100m governor election with an absolute onslaught of hateful ads pushed across the airwaves. You would be hardpressed not to believe some of this forum's popular thread starters were running the incumbent Democrat's campaign.

From what I've been hearing just being around people who make comments about the election day in & day out, the Democrat's attack ads worked against him, especially with women, I personally know several who voted Republican this time around because of their absolute disgust at the negativity of Democrat Quinn's campaign. And the poll numbers reflected that, women were a swing vote that greatly helped Rauner win in a heavily Democratic state.

This election showed the politics of hate is less and less effective.


The incumbent Senator from Louisiana was projected to win the election yesterday (but not a 50% majority, and lose the runoff next month). She made a recent statement that the supporters of "the other side" do so because of their racism against the President. She ended up not taking the most votes yesterday (though the runoff will still take place).

 

[Zaap]

Ugh. Political addicts are as bad as rabid sports fans.

Does anyone really give that much of a shit which gang of self-serving freaks has a majority this minute?

Outside of political hack nutbags throwing hissy-fits and pretending to be oppressed by a bunch of 100% imaginary drama, will anyone really notice any lick of difference in their lives based on which bunch of idiots has a majority in congress? Nope. Not one shred of difference any more than people that get all bent over which sports team wins or loses like it was some life or death thing.

Go outside. Take a breath. Live life. No one (sane) really gives a shit if corrupt Ds or spineless Rs have a temp majority. They're all shitbags. They ALL only want two things: money and power. They laugh and high five themselves that people fall for the sports team distraction of mostly meaningless political parties.


(By the way I don't mean anyone in this thread, I just mean in general- all of us, everyone's tendencies every few years to fall for the bullshit thinking their 'side' winning means anything other than another bit of distraction. I almost think the sides agree to change power every now and then before it goes too long and the team-cheerleaders realize "Hey, my 'team' is just another bunch of clueless shitbags, just like the other 'team'" Changing it up actually energizes the 'losing' side and keeps them from forgetting to properly worship their puppet-masters and root for victory -and donate CASH!- for the next big game.)

 

[lotus503]

Two lines of prevailing thought today. That the nation lost hard fought ground to minority hating, wife beating, tea party extremists. Or that the tyrannical dictatorship of the black communist, muslim, space alien has been thwarted by the heroic saviors of small government.

Some folks like to stereotype our posters. Perhaps they think my loyalties 10 years ago mean that I am happy with the election results. That "my" Republicans won election. Did they? I cannot help but think victory tastes sour.

The leadership of this country consists of dogged old men whose life ambition is the accumulation of power, whose contributors own mansions on three continents, and whose investments depend on bailing out the 1% while expecting the rest of the wealth to trickle down. Before you get excited over that trigger phrase, recall that both parties believe they saved us by bailing out Wall Street. They think a bubble inflated stock market is the best invention since their own political party.

Did we forget what Republicans did last time? Massive entitlement expansion, Patriot Act, Iraq, NSA, EPA overreach, push for amnesty. They violated my principles in so many ways that I have voted Republican for President once… and only once.

President Obama needed an extra nudge, an additional check on his executive power. Yet I would not want Republicans to take the Presidency. If they weren’t screwing Obama, they’d be screwing us.

Now I generally identify with them more, but that hinges entirely on the basis of "small government". I hold it for the realization of self determination. For the United States to remain opposite of dictatorial regimes the world over. Our people are free, and I intend to keep it that way. Republicans speak best to this principle. Their actions fall utterly short.

I identify with what they claim to be, not what they actually are. That should sound familiar to Democrats who believed in Obama’s campaign, and then met the real President once he was elected. I saw right through McCain and Romney. Bushites through and through. Who do you think Republicans will nominate in 2016?

Trick question, another Bushite. A Neocon who tells us he’s not afraid to bomb countries and sacrifice Americans. Who is not afraid to attack our liberties or grow the debt to pay off voters and corporate interests. A real "reach across the isle" moderate who is as corrupt as the day is long.

We need a paradigm shift, not just a continuation of the status quo for the past 30 years. Our two incumbent parties switching power means nothing in this regard. Republicans were a problem before, and they’ll be a problem again. It is not enough to simply vote for one or the other – something larger has to happen in American politics.

tl;dr:

• Republicans won, country is still screwed.
• How are we going to change that?

Some of the things you list is precisely why I don't bother to vote and don't care about election results. Money rules all, our current system is is broken and as long as that fact remains true who gets elected makes almost no difference as they are all doing the bidding of the donors that got them there.

 

[cubby1223]

Hey, I'm just fucking excited I can watch tv again, listen to the radio again, without the periodic interruption of hate messages And I'm hopeful at the sign that those who ran the more amplified hate campaigns in my state were the candidates who lost.

 

[werepossum]

Hey, I'm just fucking excited I can watch tv again, listen to the radio again, without the periodic interruption of hate messages And I'm hopeful at the sign that those who ran the more amplified hate campaigns in my state were the candidates who lost.

lol +1

If we want anything to really change, we have to have term limits. Period, end of story. A huge majority of politicians have lost touch with the people they nominally represent after four to six years in D.C.

 

[frowertr]

If we want anything to really change, we have to have term limits. Period, end of story. A huge majority of politicians have lost touch with the people they nominally represent after four to six years in D.C.

Good luck with getting that through. It's those people that don't have term limits that would be voting for their own term limits. Never happen...

 

[ivwshane]

Maybe the Democrats could have done better if they ran on their record, ran on their plans for the future, versus the platform many self-chose to run on: "My opponent is evil, and those who vote for him/her are hateful and deserve to be shunned."

I definitely agree with this. Dems ran on, "I'm not obama", and "I can be just like the guy to the right of me".

 

[ivwshane]

The truth as I see it, this election was about the rejection of your "lines of prevailing thought."

I completely disagree with this though. Just look at what propositions were passed or which ones failed to pass.

Minimum wage? Passed
Legal marijuana? Passed
Personhood? Failed

 

[werepossum]

Good luck with getting that through. It's those people that don't have term limits that would be voting for their own term limits. Never happen...

Agreed.

 

[dank69]

lol +1

If we want anything to really change, we have to have term limits. Period, end of story. A huge majority of politicians have lost touch with the people they nominally represent after four to six years in D.C.

Good plan. Get rid of the only power we have to try to get them to actually represent us.

 

[ivwshane]

lol +1

If we want anything to really change, we have to have term limits. Period, end of story. A huge majority of politicians have lost touch with the people they nominally represent after four to six years in D.C.

Term limits isn't the answer. The answer is more people in congress. There was supposed to be 1 rep for every 30k voters, we are no where near that (we are at 700k per rep). It's no wonder people don't feel like they aren't represented!

 

[werepossum]

Good plan. Get rid of the only power we have to try to get them to actually represent us.

And how's that working out?

The longer a politician is in office, the less vulnerable he or she is to defeat. The less vulnerable to defeat is a politician, the less he or she needs to give a crap what you want or need.

 

[hal2kilo]

Term limits isn't the answer. The answer is more people in congress. There was supposed to be 1 rep for every 30k voters, we are no where near that (we are at 700k per rep). It's no wonder people don't feel like they aren't represented!

Why we insist on staying with what happened once in a snapshot of time escapes me. In this day and age 435 is just way to little representation. I'm sure some moron going to chime in that we need to get rid of all those overpaid polititians as if that footprint on the budget is above the noise.

 

[ivwshane]

Why we insist on staying with what happened once in a snapshot of time escapes me. In this day and age 435 is just way to little representation. I'm sure some moron going to chime in that we need to get rid of all those overpaid polititians as if that footprint on the budget is above the noise.

Well there is no reason why they couldn't be paid less. More congressman means less influence which means that in order to "buy" a politician and get influence, you'd have to buy a shit load of them.

More congressman also means that the extremes become irrelevant. It also means more compromise against party lines.

But more importantly it means smaller groups of Americans now get representation.

I'd say it should be around 100k people per rep and they should be paid 100k plus traveling.

 

[Zaap]

Great. More congressmen, lower pay for all of them. Term limits.

All for it.

 

[Atomic Playboy]

Term limits is like 10% of the problem. You all touched on it earlier; it's money. Campaigning has become a year-round thing with millions in soft money bolstering pro-corporate candidates regardless of political affiliation. Anyone who thinks their "side" won because of a D or an R next to a name is deluding themselves; if you aren't running a billion dollar company, none of these politicians gives a flying fuck about you. And you're not just fixing that with term limits; you need to get the money out of campaigns. Seeing as how that will literally never happen because there's absolutely no incentive for the people in power to voluntarily relinquish it, we'll just keep hacking away at this partisan bullshit while we get eternally fucked by the rich. Business as usual. Yippee-ki-yay. We all lose.

 

[ivwshane]

Term limits is like 10% of the problem. You all touched on it earlier; it's money. Campaigning has become a year-round thing with millions in soft money bolstering pro-corporate candidates regardless of political affiliation. Anyone who thinks their "side" won because of a D or an R next to a name is deluding themselves; if you aren't running a billion dollar company, none of these politicians gives a flying fuck about you. And you're not just fixing that with term limits; you need to get the money out of campaigns. Seeing as how that will literally never happen because there's absolutely no incentive for the people in power to voluntarily relinquish it, we'll just keep hacking away at this partisan bullshit while we get eternally fucked by the rich. Business as usual. Yippee-ki-yay. We all lose.

More congressman would put a serious dent in outsider money. The rest could be helped with more transparent campaign contribution laws. I'm not holding my breath for that last one.

 

[cubby1223]

I'd say it should be around 100k people per rep and they should be paid 100k plus traveling.

A legislative body of over 3,000 members is too much. Some would see their representation more influential. I think many more would see their representation ignored. It's just too many. In my opinion.