|
|
Post by La Princess on Sept 13, 2011 1:38:37 GMT -5
The Republitards know they can't get a President elected next year. The prize they're eyeing is around 20 more seats in the Senate, with the bonus of a filibuster-proof House. There are a bunch of gubernatorial elections too. Stay alert. An interesting thing is happening in Illinois with redistricting. For instance my representative is an awful tea party privledged white boy named Kinzinger. He got elected basically because he's a pretty boy and young. This district looks like it's going to be combined with the neighboring one, which is run by Jesse Jackson Jr. I despise both of them but if this new redistricting does go through I think it'll have an effect on the seats in congress. |
|
|
|
Post by sarahb1863 on Sept 13, 2011 7:03:03 GMT -5
Sarah, do you remember that one skit on SNL around 1991 or so? The skit was called something like "Democratic candidates who will be beat by George Bush in 1992". At that point Bush had a huge approval rating (I think it was right after Desert Storm)and no one even thought the candidate had a chance. Then of course Clinton and Bush lost. Hm - no, I don't remember that one! I'll have to look it up. Thanks! I see it either being Romney or one of the bat crazy Republicans like Bachmann. People will not vote for her. People are for the most part moderate and anyone extreme usually doesn't get in. However, we still have over a year and it's possible someone else will run. I don't think Obama is the worst president. Yes, he's a mess, but I still think Bush 2 was the worst. My understanding is that it's pretty much too late for any new Republican candidate to declare - everybody who's interested in the job has already made their intentions known. So, this is what the Republicans have to pick from. As for Obama being the worst president - he has the misfortune to be a president during tough times, and they tend to catch a lot of heat for that. Abraham Lincoln was hugely unpopular during his presidency - there were constant calls for his impeachment and a widescale movement to remove him from office called the "Copperheads". I'm not sure John McCain would have handled all of this any better. |
|
|
|
Post by wiseandnaked on Sept 13, 2011 11:55:24 GMT -5
The Republicans sure are doing a horrible job of taking the White House. The people who will be deciding on who will be the candidate love Perry, apparently, but Perry has made noises about touching Social Security.
Old people vote. In great numbers, compared to younger demographics. Perry will have to do lots of backpeddaling to try to get them to support him now.
Add to that Perry's disdain for science, and he comes across as being too radical for the 'independents' who occupy the middle ground.
Maybe the majority of people would decide upon a blank space over Obama (big-money propaganda war proves effective), but that makes absolutely no difference, seeing as somebody has to occupy that blank space. Perry is my guess for who it will be, and he's a real stinker.
|
|
|
|
Post by La Princess on Sept 13, 2011 12:53:34 GMT -5
My understanding is that it's pretty much too late for any new Republican candidate to declare - everybody who's interested in the job has already made their intentions known. So, this is what the Republicans have to pick from. As for Obama being the worst president - he has the misfortune to be a president during tough times, and they tend to catch a lot of heat for that. Abraham Lincoln was hugely unpopular during his presidency - there were constant calls for his impeachment and a widescale movement to remove him from office called the "Copperheads". I'm not sure John McCain would have handled all of this any better. I think McCain would have made it worse. I was watching a documentary on FDR and contrary to what we hear a lot in the media he just didn't fix the economy, it took years. In fact WW2 is really what fixed the economy and afterwards the economy was the strongest it had ever been. The 50's was in fact a strong time for prosperity, but of course even then many people were left behind. If this is the Republicans choices, then yes they are pretty bad. This would be like being in school and having to choose the stoner or the airhead for student body president. Neither choice is appealing. |
|
|
|
Post by sarahb1863 on Sept 13, 2011 16:15:27 GMT -5
Maybe the majority of people would decide upon a blank space over Obama (big-money propaganda war proves effective), but that makes absolutely no difference, seeing as somebody has to occupy that blank space. Perry is my guess for who it will be, and he's a real stinker. I have a good friend who lives in Texas, and she and most of the people she knows there HATE Perry. They say he's destroyed the state. She doesn't think Perry will get far in any real campaign or debate - when he was running for governor he refused to debate anyone and wouldn't grant interviews. That sort of arrogance wouldn't look good for someone running for national office. |
|
|
|
Post by wiseandnaked on Sept 14, 2011 9:17:51 GMT -5
La Princess: "In fact WW2 is really what fixed the economy and afterwards the economy was the strongest it had ever been. "
-----------------------------------
WW2 was the largest instance of deficit government spending ever. The US Government borrowed and borrowed to pay for huge investments in weapons, ships, planes, etc.... and everybody went back to work: either "Rosie the Riveter" in the factories, or, unfortunately, in the trenches actually fighting. It's funny that people on the right like to disparage the Works Progress/ TVA type programs of FDR, but conveniently forget that WW2 was actually an example of the same.
|
|
|
|
Post by La Princess on Sept 14, 2011 13:23:19 GMT -5
Sarah, I know a few who live in Texas too and they've told me Perry is even worse than Bush. Just the thought of a another Bush makes me cringe.
Wiseandnaked, very true. I have been hearing about another works project, but here's the problems I see. For one, many of the people who managed to find jobs through the ARRA project were in fact illegals. I don't blame the illegals, but rather the people hiring them to work instead of higher paid Americans. Second, unlike before WW2 we are now in a technological age. Most people today aren't blue collar workers. Most wouldn't even know how to do a lot of these jobs or wouldn't want to. Even though I've worked in generally blue collar industries, I am a white collar (I generally worked in management jobs at these facilities).
There are a few things we should be doing and the biggest one is dealing with outsourcing. We need to bring those jobs back. I would support various tax breaks to do this and tax increases on companies that refuse to. I also think some form of retraining many workers might also be important.
|
|
|
|
Post by marchmadness on Sept 14, 2011 13:35:51 GMT -5
Maybe the majority of people would decide upon a blank space over Obama (big-money propaganda war proves effective), but that makes absolutely no difference, seeing as somebody has to occupy that blank space. Perry is my guess for who it will be, and he's a real stinker. I have a good friend who lives in Texas, and she and most of the people she knows there HATE Perry. They say he's destroyed the state. She doesn't think Perry will get far in any real campaign or debate - when he was running for governor he refused to debate anyone and wouldn't grant interviews. That sort of arrogance wouldn't look good for someone running for national office. I can't stand him! He looks like a lying weasel and he used to be a democrat. On the contrary, someone who seems honest....Herman Cain. I don't really think he has a chance but I'm rooting for him. |
|
|
|
Post by marchmadness on Sept 14, 2011 13:51:59 GMT -5
Sarah, do you remember that one skit on SNL around 1991 or so? The skit was called something like "Democratic candidates who will be beat by George Bush in 1992". At that point Bush had a huge approval rating (I think it was right after Desert Storm)and no one even thought the candidate had a chance. Then of course Clinton and Bush lost. Hm - no, I don't remember that one! I'll have to look it up. Thanks! I see it either being Romney or one of the bat crazy Republicans like Bachmann. People will not vote for her. People are for the most part moderate and anyone extreme usually doesn't get in. However, we still have over a year and it's possible someone else will run. I don't think Obama is the worst president. Yes, he's a mess, but I still think Bush 2 was the worst. My understanding is that it's pretty much too late for any new Republican candidate to declare - everybody who's interested in the job has already made their intentions known. So, this is what the Republicans have to pick from. As for Obama being the worst president - he has the misfortune to be a president during tough times, and they tend to catch a lot of heat for that. Abraham Lincoln was hugely unpopular during his presidency - there were constant calls for his impeachment and a widescale movement to remove him from office called the "Copperheads". I'm not sure John McCain would have handled all of this any better. I don't think McCain would have been a lot better but I don't think he would intentionally drive the country into the toilet. McCain is a progressive. He's not a conservative republican. He was all we had. Any one of the reps we have to choose from this year are better choices than McCain, imo. As a conservative, I'm not thrilled with our choices (though they are definitely all much better than Obama). I've said many times on this forum and elsewhere that Cain is my choice, but I don't see that happening. I do know that Perry is my least favorite with Huntsman right there with him, then Romney and Newt. The other three fall somewhere between Newt and Cain. I think any of them can beat Obama. I just hope we make the right choice in who does that. This is an important election and we need to get it right. Lincoln-That's the guy Obama said founded the republican party.  As far as going down in history-I think history will tell that Obama's presidency was a disaster. You can recognize a terrible leader when you see one, and there's not much he can do at this point to change that. The class warfare and Bush blaming need to stop. How can we expect our fellow Americans to take responsibility for ourselves and our actions when our own president refuses to do so? It's just so juvenile and only his most devoted supporters are even buying it anymore. He needs to man up and lead. Maybe then he can earn back some of the respect and trust that he lost. |
|
|
|
Post by La Princess on Sept 14, 2011 17:49:57 GMT -5
Obama said Lincoln founded the Republican Party? I missed that but it's not true, Lincoln was just the first viable Republican. Oddly, they were the progressive party and the Democrats were the party of slavery. Of course now the Republicans are the more conservative party (I will not say the Republicans are the slavery party as I've heard because that is simply not true).
Yes I do blame Bush, but I also blame Clinton and Reagan for the mess we are in. If you are going where I think you are about welfare and blaming others, I certainly think that was a problem with the safety net. While I do think we need a safety net, others yes do use it. Another thing I see is many people blaming others for mistakes. An example is the current unemployment crisis. While yes, I blame outsourcing, so many people refuse to take actions and change their lives. I've had to learn various computer programs that only 10 years ago didn't exist to keep up in jobs. Too many people refuse to, then wonder why they can't find a job.
It's hard to say how Obama will be ranked years from now. I told someone he's either going to be one of the worst presidents ever or one of the best. Keep in mind though that history changes. At the time Truman was considered to be one of the worst presidents ever and expected to be defeated by Dewey. Everyone has seen the photo. However, historians now give him a better rating than back then. Likewise, I personally think years from now we'll look at Clinton and realize he wasn't as good as people think because of NAFTA and 1996 Telecommunications Act.
|
|
