Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
Tell that to main stream media and internet forums who are currently trying to choose "the winner" long before the election is held. The democrats and their media lackeys are already declaring the Republican winner they want and trying to convince the ignorant TV watching masses by repeating their results over and over hoping it will stick (cough Romney cough).
I am telling it to the mainstream media and to internet forums. I am telling it to anyone who will listen. Elections aren't about the contest, they are about the conversation. The only way that can be made untrue is if people give up on being part of the conversation. The mainstream media cannot lock people out of the conversation. "The Democrats and their media lackeys" can not disconnect the people from the election process, which is ALL about the conversation that needs to take place. It's not ignorance that keeps people out of the conversation, it's an unwillingness to participate. This is where we have the greatest opportunity to use our voices, to have input. We need to strive to maximize that input.
With Republicans involved in choosing who they will run against President Obama, and the extreme partisanship that seems to typify our political forums these days, I think it's important to remember that elections aren't just a contest to see who can win the nomination or who wins the election.
Elections were initially designed to give people a voice. A voice in a conversation that's supposed to be between ourselves and our elected leaders. That conversation isn't supposed to be a one-way series of speeches. It's supposed to be a real and vibrant conversation.
I'd like a President who doesn't tell us how he's going to fix things, because the truth is, the President isn't going to fix things. The President is going to work with Congress and with the people to fix things, and that's not an easy process. I don't want a President who promises things he cannot deliver, and I want the voters to call him on it when he makes those promises. It's a conversation, between voters and candidates, that requires voters to demand substance, not hollow promises, that needs to happen in this country.
In theory what you say is true, but all candidates always base their campaign of what they will do for the country...hopefully they know and we do as well, he/she can only make a difference if the legislative branch is willing to cooporate. Oh course none of us want a Pres that makes hallow promises.
In theory what you say is true, but all candidates always base their campaign of what they will do for the country...hopefully they know and we do as well, he/she can only make a difference if the legislative branch is willing to cooporate. Oh course none of us want a Pres that makes hallow promises.
Nita
No, it's not just in theory. Elections are not just about the candidates and their campaigns, and this misconception is what causes apathy and the lack of participation in our political process. The elections were originally, and continue to be about the conversation. It's the voters who can make a difference, NOT the candidates, the VOTERS, if they seize the opportunity to be a part of the conversation. The idea that voters should just sit back and take it all in is the problem. And then afterwards, voters all complain because the candidates are ineffectual and non-responsive. What do they have to be responsive to? US! But we have to participate. And that's what elections are about. OUR participation.
sanrene:"Where were you and this missive when obama was ignoring the "voice" of the people as he was shoving obamacare down our throats?"
LOL. I voted against BO in 2008, and dislike Obamacare, but your statement is DEAD wrong. bO campaigned on NHC, was elected by a wide margin (his vote total exceeded JM's by over 15%, higher than most presidential elections over the last several decades), and he than, predictably, fought for and signed into law, what he campaigned on.
Absolute NONSENSE. HE ran AGAINST Hillary's HC mandate in the dem primary. He mocked her for it. What he signed into law breaks nearly every promise he made about what the bill would do.
He won by 8 points, NOT 15. Oh, you would do well to look at the number of votes in swing states that gave him the win - about 800,000 votes decided the election.
He ran for NHC, sanrene, NHC was passed, he signed it. Be honest it is NOT the mandate you hate, it is NHC, in any form. So any passage of NHC would bring about your same generic response, which all 35,000 posts of yours come back with. (usually I do not read them for that reason!!)
8 points margin yes, 15% is the ratio of votes 53%/46% = 115%, hence for every JM vote, Obama received 1.15, which is 15% more votes.
PS, If you can find BO saying "I will not support ANY form of NHC, please post it. Didn't happen. Elections have consequences. Boo Hoo. Man UP.
Please register to post and access all features of our very popular forum. It is free and quick. Over $68,000 in prizes has already been given out to active posters on our forum. Additional giveaways are planned.
Detailed information about all U.S. cities, counties, and zip codes on our site: City-data.com.
Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
