Larry Posted May 9, 2006 Share Posted May 9, 2006 OK, Humor, New data from a public opinion poll suggests that 1 in 3 conservatives want the Republican party to lose controll of Congress in the upcomming elections. "Blaming Democrats for everything that's going wrong in the world isn't getting the traction that it used to. We need to let the other guys gain the apearance of power, somewhere, so that we can get back to doing what we want and pushing the blame someplace else" (Hey, I didn't say it was funny humor.) Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
SkinsHokieFan Posted May 9, 2006 Share Posted May 9, 2006 A caveat though people with house races in particular Kilmer17 always does remind us to look at local polling, and that most people hate Congress but love their Congressman It'll be interesting to see what those polls say come fall time Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Zguy28 Posted May 9, 2006 Share Posted May 9, 2006 wait, so you mean to tell me a liberal network cited a liberal poll saying 1 in 3 conservatives want republicans to lose:doh: yeah, i'll put a lot of stock in that And Joe Scarboro a liberal right? I agree that MSNBC has liberal skew sometimes but not ol Joe Scarboro. HE's a conservative. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Burgold Posted May 9, 2006 Share Posted May 9, 2006 On terror I give them an A+, but spending and lack of tax reform has broken my faith in them You would seriously give them an A+? Knowing how little has been done to secure our harbors, train stations, borders, etc. Knowing that the Head of the CIA was forced out for incompetence and cronyism? Knowing that the incidents of terrorism have increased dramatically over the last several years (stats which have been posted and reposted ad nauseum here on Extremeskins) You would give them an A+ knowing that Bin Laden is still out there inciting and orchestrating? Man, you're an easy grader. I would at best give them a B. And that's just on good faith that it takes a lot of time to change an infrastructure and bureacrasy. Although their position of keeping the borders unguarded so that illegals can enter at will to supply labor... and drugs, weapons, terrorists, etc. seems pretty poor to me if you care about the War on Terror. I mean seriously, where would you enter if you were a terrorist? An minimally guarded port or an minimally guarded border through which the President has given his tacit permission to let them keep slipping through? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Zguy28 Posted May 9, 2006 Share Posted May 9, 2006 You would seriously give them an A+? Knowing how little has been done to secure our harbors, train stations, borders, etc. Knowing that the Head of the CIA was forced out for incompetence and cronyism? Knowing that the incidents of terrorism have increased dramatically over the last several years (stats which have been posted and reposted ad nauseum here on Extremeskins) You would give them an A+ knowing that Bin Laden is still out there inciting and orchestrating?I'm going to have to give you a "Chomerics-style" post here. I hope the Dems win in Nov and the next Presidency! Why? Because then when the country falls apart and they don't have Republicans to blame, I'll enjoy the awkward silence! Then again there probably won't be silence because they'll still find a way to blame the minority opposition who has been spitefully holding them up!:2cents: I will now resume normal activity. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Burgold Posted May 9, 2006 Share Posted May 9, 2006 That'd be fair Of course, we'll probably rebutt with what Conservatives have been saying for the past six years... "Two years is too short a time frame to see the results of any substansive change" Heck, every so often when talking about recruitment numbers and the size of the millitary they still say that the underrecruitment is totally Clinton's fault. If the Dems get a turn at driving policy they better produce some ideas and at least some real debate. There's a lot out there that needs remedy or at least redress. They need to take action. Even if that action won't manifest until the next election cycle. I dislike the policy of "sit back and let them implode, because if we help the majority will just take the credit" It's slimy and not why they were elected. The minority party does this too often. If someone has a good idea they should share it. In some cases the Repubs have squelched and silenced debate and only allowed their agenda to be debated, but the Dems need to prove themselves if elected. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Zguy28 Posted May 9, 2006 Share Posted May 9, 2006 If the Dems get a turn at driving policy they better produce some ideas and at least some real debate...but the Dems need to prove themselves if elected.Absolutely. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Henry Posted May 9, 2006 Share Posted May 9, 2006 Larry, I think proportional voting is a terrible idea. From what I can see, under that system the voters have NO say whatsoever which individual party members will represent them. Say the Dems put some guy at the top of their list of your state that you happen to think is freaking psycho. You want to vote against him, but you don't want the entire party to completely lose it's representation in your state. Too bad, I guess. Also, I think the romance with a 14 to 20-party sytem would last for about 6 months. You think nothing gets done now? Wait and see how fast a loosely-united coalition of 8 parties takes action. Some of you may yearn for the day our government is run the same way Italy's is. Not me. No system is perfect, but ours is still more perefect than that. In my opinion. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Burgold Posted May 9, 2006 Share Posted May 9, 2006 Larry, so it would sort of be like. The citizens vote for a party. Seats are assigned by proportions and then there's an electoral college that votes for the actual membership to fill that elected seat? Could work, except that with old boy's networks how would you ever ensure that a political figure everybody went out was removed? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Kilmer17 Posted May 9, 2006 Share Posted May 9, 2006 Again, show me a SPECIFIC poll that shows ACTUAL GOPers losing to REAL Dems and I'll start to worry. Generalized polls are meaningless. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
gchwood Posted May 9, 2006 Share Posted May 9, 2006 here is my question: Why do people vote along party lines? People will vote for someone just because a candidate belongs to a certain party. While I am a registered Republican I vote for who most closely holds my beliefs as most are republicans, i have voted for indepentant and democrats. Isn't this how we should all vote? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Mass_SkinsFan Posted May 9, 2006 Share Posted May 9, 2006 here is my question: Why do people vote along party lines? People will vote for someone just because a candidate belongs to a certain party. While I am a registered Republican I vote for who most closely holds my beliefs as most are republicans, i have voted for indepentant and democrats. Isn't this how we should all vote? Yep. That is how it should be. Unfortunately that requires an informed and educated electorate. Every time I've suggested the only reasonable solution for proving that a voter is informed and educated on the ballot before they vote, I get told I'm stupid and the idea is unreasonable. You can't have it both ways. In 1992 the State of Connecticut took the "party lever" off all the voting machines in the state for just this purpose. It didn't help anything. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
AJ_Skins Posted May 9, 2006 Share Posted May 9, 2006 (He knows that's "who the Democrats are", because Rush tells him so.) No, I know because Nancy Pelosi, Howard Dean and Michael Moore tell me so. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Larry Posted May 9, 2006 Share Posted May 9, 2006 Larry, so it would sort of be like. The citizens vote for a party. Seats are assigned by proportions and then there's an electoral college that votes for the actual membership to fill that elected seat? Could work, except that with old boy's networks how would you ever ensure that a political figure everybody went out was removed? No, in the case of Congress, in Florida (26 Congressmen), then for every 4% of the vote your party gets, your party sends one guy off the list. Get 40% of the vote? Call the first ten names off of the list. 7%? Send the first two. (If (roughly) 4% of the vote selects one Congressman, then 100% of the vote will select (roughly) 26) And those are your Congressmen. There are no districts. 26 Congressmen, representing Florida. Henry, In your case, you go ahead and vote Democrat, anyway (if you live in a Miami senior citizens home and can't read). Or you vote for the "D Prime" party, who's platform is "we vote just like Democrats, but we don't vote for psycos". Seriousy, though: What do you do now if you like the Democrat platform but not their candidate? Right now, your choices are Hold your nose and vote Democrat, anyway Vote Republican Stay home and say "it's not my fault" At least under a proportional system you'd have other choices. And they'd be choices that count. And are you really saying you'd oppose proportional voting because it might cause gridlock? To me, that's an endorsement! Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Larry Posted May 9, 2006 Share Posted May 9, 2006 No, I know because Nancy Pelosi, Howard Dean and Michael Moore tell me so. Well, that's your problem. You've been listening to "Nancy Pelosi, Howard Dean and Michael Moore". I haven't. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
AJ_Skins Posted May 9, 2006 Share Posted May 9, 2006 Well, that's your problem. You've been listening to "Nancy Pelosi, Howard Dean and Michael Moore". I haven't. Given that they are, respectively, the Democrats' minority leader in the House, the Chairman of the Democratic National Committee, and one of the more famous mouthpieces for liberalism in the entertainment industry, I think they qualify for telling people who the Democrats are. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Predicto Posted May 9, 2006 Share Posted May 9, 2006 Given that they are, respectively, the Democrats' minority leader in the House, the Chairman of the Democratic National Committee, and one of the more famous mouthpieces for liberalism in the entertainment industry, I think they qualify for telling people who the Democrats are. Perhaps you have an argument about the first two. But not Moore. He is no more a spokesman for the Democrats than Ann Coulter is a spokeswoman for the Republicans. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Sarge Posted May 9, 2006 Share Posted May 9, 2006 Conservatives will probably stay home this fall. This could or could not be a bad thing. We see no one in the Republican party worth voting for, and yet will not vote for dems, as they are more worthless than the current lot of Repubs. A disgusting situation really IF they Dems would even act conservative, they might get some of the disaffected Repub voters, but they are too beholden to the loons to do that. Maybe I'll run for office since I'm retired now Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
luckydevil Posted May 9, 2006 Share Posted May 9, 2006 Maybe I'll run for office since I'm retired now God help us all Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Sarge Posted May 9, 2006 Share Posted May 9, 2006 God help us all Don't worry, I'll set things straight Zer vill be oooorder! :laugh: Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Predicto Posted May 9, 2006 Share Posted May 9, 2006 I know the trains will run on time :paranoid: Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Crazyhorse1 Posted May 10, 2006 Share Posted May 10, 2006 Actually, I've never known a stupid white man who didn't call himself a conservative without being something a whole lot worse. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Larry Posted May 10, 2006 Share Posted May 10, 2006 Actually, I've never known a stupid white man who didn't call himself a conservative without being something a whole lot worse. So, now you're capable of disgnosing someone's inner self based simply on his race, gender, and political affiliation? (And entitled to unilaterally insult all of them at the same time?) You related to Bill Frist? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Ancalagon the Black Posted May 10, 2006 Share Posted May 10, 2006 Larry, what you call "proportional voting" is called "parliamentary democracy" in many countries. It has its advantages, but I don't like it. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Crazyhorse1 Posted May 10, 2006 Share Posted May 10, 2006 So, now you're capable of disgnosing someone's inner self based simply on his race, gender, and political affiliation? (And entitled to unilaterally insult all of them at the same time?) You related to Bill Frist? The point being that no true conservative whose motives are impeccable wants the current bunch of phony conservatives in power. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Archived
This topic is now archived and is closed to further replies.