Welcome to City-Data.com Forum!
U.S. CitiesCity-Data Forum Index
Go Back   City-Data Forum > General Forums > Politics and Other Controversies
 [Register]
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.
View detailed profile (Advanced) or search
site with Google Custom Search

Search Forums  (Advanced)
 
Old 02-12-2014, 05:59 AM
 
8,391 posts, read 6,285,112 times
Reputation: 2314

Advertisements

Quote:
Originally Posted by BigJon3475 View Post
2012 was just pathetic. People just don't give a crap about left wing ideologues like you seem to think they do and there isn't enough left-wingers in the country to really gaur tee them much of anything. That's why democrats are freaking out and asking he president to delay his signature achievement. They don't want to lose the Senate also.
Huh? what you wrote makes no sense. Your opinion about left wing ideologues is irrelevant.

Again, my only point is based on the Demographic changes, based on the results of the last six presidential elections, and based on the data that points to conservatives become more extreme, that the Democratic party is in better shape overall to win the Presidency than the conservative party.

In 2014, the key for the Democratic party is voter turnout. If there is increased voter turnout for the midterms than Democrats will do ok, if not then the Democrats won't do well.
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message

 
Old 02-12-2014, 07:12 AM
 
577 posts, read 434,513 times
Reputation: 391
Quote:
Originally Posted by Mathguy View Post
Much of that government R&D that you are citing came from MILITARY spending.

Um, yes...our govt. can be incredibly inefficient at times. However, there are certain roles where they are quite effective. That's an enormous topic with no single right answer.

One persons "wasted vote" is another persons message sent. I for one don't like being used and abused because I will vote for a party no matter what they do.

I cannot possibly imagine you own stock in Tesla and are unaware of the federal tax guarantees to Fisker.
Let me recap what your dem "pro green" buddies did and fking called it "pro green". They gave guaranteed loans to Tesla's competitor to make cars NOT on US soil. Tesla if you paid attention, has been struggling with sales volume to be viable.

Basically, you are blindly supporting the very people that were BRIBED via campaign contributions to undercut Tesla in favor of a company making cars for the 1%.

Sometimes you have to actually defend your morals instead of blindly supporting those that SAY they are on your side and then knife you in the back. Stop being a patsy, vote for the person based on their record, not the D or the R. YOu might be shocked how an R in one state is to the left of some D's and vice versa on certain topics.
I know well about Tesla. I wrote a paper about their business strategy.

First off, they are taking a strategy similar to that of Apple - going for those consumers that are first adapters and can and are willing to pay premium prices for a brand new technology. They have plans of putting out a car that is less than $30,000 for the general public I believe it was originally this year.. Their SUV was a step into more affordable cars from their original Roadster. They have also taken care in building more slowly to build supporting infrastructure to service and charge cars so that as more consumers are aware of the Tesla autos, their use is well supported. No one will buy a car that they can't get serviced or are afraid that there would be no place to plug it in for a recharge!

They have an excellent strategy that will sustain them.. their stock has increased nearly 400% since I first bought their stock. And. the fact that I've heard of Tesla and not the other company goes to show that the loans mean squat.

As for what the "green " dems did -what part of I understand that not all "dems" are good do YOU not understand. I don't agree with EVERYTHING that they do and as I stated, I'm well aware that most of the time or on a lot of issues they are the differnet sides of the same coin.

However, I vote for them because on certain issues, like healthcare, they are at least getting us closer to where we need to be.. Republicans.. not so much. Republican party is FAR WORSE than the democrat party on EVERY issue that matters.

You may think you are making a 'statement' but really it's moot when the person you voted for doesn't even get anywhere CLOSE to winning office to effect that change. At least for me, that's how I look at it. I might make a statement by voting for the third guy, but in the meantime others didn't and rather than choosing the lesser of the two evils to give them a vote, the greater of two evils may have just won over the lesser and I didn't really have a say. Again, this is my opinion.

And, as i said before, the REAL problem is the money tied up in politics and particularly in our election system. If candidates didn't have to worry about loosing their corporate sponsors, they would act more on what is best for the nation rather than what is best for the crony capitalists....

Third party people will continue to loose and we'll ahve a batter of Repubs vs Dems until we really shake up our election system and do away with the money involved in running and really just run on the issues with EVERY candidate will get equal aire time to voice their positions to stand a chance..

Until that time, I will continue to cast my vote for Democrats - because Republicans are the WORST CASE Scenario...



As for R&D - I believe the CIA was the reason for the internet... And perhaps not ALL military spending is bad - at least when new tech comes out of it, but not what we are spending on these days.

Oh.. and the healthcare website debacle - the problem was that it was outsourced to various PRIVATE companies, rather than worked in house by the government. I see THAT as an issue.. perhaps if the governmnet directly hiired talent rather than outsourced to a private firm, it would have gone over much better..
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 02-12-2014, 07:32 AM
 
Location: Plymouth Meeting, PA.
5,724 posts, read 3,238,588 times
Reputation: 3133
good read

https://scontent-a.xx.fbcdn.net/hpho...68886438_n.jpg
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 02-12-2014, 07:35 AM
 
Location: A great city, by a Great Lake!
15,896 posts, read 11,961,214 times
Reputation: 7502
Be careful what you wish for folks. One party rule, no matter what is not a good thing, and is one step away from a dictatorship. There needs to be checks and balances. That is the way that the United States system of government was set up to work. In fact it's about time that we get back to that system.
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 02-12-2014, 09:52 AM
 
78,022 posts, read 60,232,230 times
Reputation: 49417
Quote:
Originally Posted by Proud2beAMom View Post
I know well about Tesla. I wrote a paper about their business strategy.

First off, they are taking a strategy similar to that of Apple - going for those consumers that are first adapters and can and are willing to pay premium prices for a brand new technology. They have plans of putting out a car that is less than $30,000 for the general public I believe it was originally this year.. Their SUV was a step into more affordable cars from their original Roadster. They have also taken care in building more slowly to build supporting infrastructure to service and charge cars so that as more consumers are aware of the Tesla autos, their use is well supported. No one will buy a car that they can't get serviced or are afraid that there would be no place to plug it in for a recharge!

They have an excellent strategy that will sustain them.. their stock has increased nearly 400% since I first bought their stock. And. the fact that I've heard of Tesla and not the other company goes to show that the loans mean squat.

As for what the "green " dems did -what part of I understand that not all "dems" are good do YOU not understand. I don't agree with EVERYTHING that they do and as I stated, I'm well aware that most of the time or on a lot of issues they are the differnet sides of the same coin.

However, I vote for them because on certain issues, like healthcare, they are at least getting us closer to where we need to be.. Republicans.. not so much. Republican party is FAR WORSE than the democrat party on EVERY issue that matters.

You may think you are making a 'statement' but really it's moot when the person you voted for doesn't even get anywhere CLOSE to winning office to effect that change. At least for me, that's how I look at it. I might make a statement by voting for the third guy, but in the meantime others didn't and rather than choosing the lesser of the two evils to give them a vote, the greater of two evils may have just won over the lesser and I didn't really have a say. Again, this is my opinion.

And, as i said before, the REAL problem is the money tied up in politics and particularly in our election system. If candidates didn't have to worry about loosing their corporate sponsors, they would act more on what is best for the nation rather than what is best for the crony capitalists....

Third party people will continue to loose and we'll ahve a batter of Repubs vs Dems until we really shake up our election system and do away with the money involved in running and really just run on the issues with EVERY candidate will get equal aire time to voice their positions to stand a chance..

Until that time, I will continue to cast my vote for Democrats - because Republicans are the WORST CASE Scenario...



As for R&D - I believe the CIA was the reason for the internet... And perhaps not ALL military spending is bad - at least when new tech comes out of it, but not what we are spending on these days.

Oh.. and the healthcare website debacle - the problem was that it was outsourced to various PRIVATE companies, rather than worked in house by the government. I see THAT as an issue.. perhaps if the governmnet directly hiired talent rather than outsourced to a private firm, it would have gone over much better..
Wow. Every democrat is a better choice than any republican, in all cases....yep, my bad....I incorrectly assumed we had the potential for a reasonable discussion.
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 02-12-2014, 10:49 AM
 
14,944 posts, read 8,558,182 times
Reputation: 7361
Quote:
Originally Posted by Gnutella View Post
Going back to the start of Abraham Lincoln's presidency, which is when the two-party system we know today first started, there have been two extended periods of Republican dominance in the White House, and one period of Democrat dominance.

For 72 years from 1861 to 1933, the United States had 52 years of Republican presidency, and only 20 years of Democrat presidency between three presidents (Andrew Johnson, Grover Cleveland, Woodrow Wilson). The end of this era came with the ouster of Herbert Hoover.

For 36 years from 1933 to 1969, the United States had 28 years of Democrat presidency, and Dwight Eisenhower had the only eight years of Republican presidency during this time. This era ended when Lyndon B. Johnson chose not to run for reelection.

More recently, for 40 years from 1969 to 2009, the Republicans had the upper hand again, with 28 years of the presidency to only 12 years for the Democrats (Jimmy Carter, Bill Clinton). It appears to me that this era has ended with George W. Bush's second term.

Right now, I believe that we've entered a second period of Democrat dominance. Why? Because Herbert Hoover, Lyndon B. Johnson and George W. Bush were all highly unpopular when they left office. Hoover was unpopular because of an economic calamity. Johnson was unpopular because of a controversial war. Bush was unpopular because of an economic calamity and a controversial war.

It took the Republicans a generation to recover from Hoover's bad reputation, and it took the Democrats a generation to recover from Johnson's bad reputation. Rightly or wrongly, Bush has a bad reputation, and I wonder if it'll take a generation for the Republicans to recover from it.

With that said, it's worth noting that the less popular political party has put at least one president into the White House for two terms during the dominance of the opposite party. Grover Cleveland and Woodrow Wilson were both two-term Democrats during a long era of Republican dominance. Dwight Eisenhower was a two-term Republican when the Democrats had the upper hand, and Bill Clinton was a two-term Democrat during the most recent Republican era.

The longest period of time that one political party has had control of the White House is 20 years, when the Democrats had it from 1933 to 1953. There were two 16-year periods of one-party control, both by the Republicans, from 1869 to 1885, and 1897 to 1913. Other than that, neither party has been in control for more than 12 years at a time, which illustrates that Americans don't tolerate continuous one-party rule well.

Any thoughts?
Yes ... with the massive stockpiling of ammo ... hollow point ammo banned for use in warfare by the international community .. by federal agencies not just law enforcement, but agencies like NOAA, the Postal Service, etc., looks to me like they don't believe the American people are going to put up with either gang of criminals in Washington DC for too much longer.

All I can say is, I wonder what they know, that they ain't telling us? Or, perhaps, what plans do they have which they fully expect will result in large scale civil unrest and disobediance?

No ... the democrats have exposed themselves too blatantly, and by the time Obama us finished, it won't be safe for anyone to admit they are a liberal democrat.

There are only limited outcomes at this point ...

1) dramatic shift back to constitutional governing, and restoration of the national economy

or

2) the continued criminal cronyism, and implementation of overt authoritarian marshall law, along with the inevitable mass civil unrest/civil war in response.
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 02-12-2014, 10:59 AM
 
Location: A great city, by a Great Lake!
15,896 posts, read 11,961,214 times
Reputation: 7502
Quote:
Originally Posted by GuyNTexas View Post
Yes ... with the massive stockpiling of ammo ... hollow point ammo banned for use in warfare by the international community .. by federal agencies not just law enforcement, but agencies like NOAA, the Postal Service, etc., looks to me like they don't believe the American people are going to put up with either gang of criminals in Washington DC for too much longer.

All I can say is, I wonder what they know, that they ain't telling us? Or, perhaps, what plans do they have which they fully expect will result in large scale civil unrest and disobediance?

No ... the democrats have exposed themselves too blatantly, and by the time Obama us finished, it won't be safe for anyone to admit they are a liberal democrat.

There are only limited outcomes at this point ...

1) dramatic shift back to constitutional governing, and restoration of the national economy

or

2) the continued criminal cronyism, and implementation of overt authoritarian marshall law, along with the inevitable mass civil unrest/civil war in response.

Let's hope it's the first option.
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 02-12-2014, 11:02 AM
 
1,730 posts, read 1,359,967 times
Reputation: 760
I don't give a crap who's running it as long as we all get a fair shot.
I make a lot of fun of both sides, that's just frustration.
Not really too impressed with anything the last few years.
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 02-12-2014, 11:05 AM
 
14,293 posts, read 9,660,473 times
Reputation: 4254
Quote:
Originally Posted by ellemint View Post
With their current platform of being anti-woman, anti-gay, anti-minorities, anti-immigrant, anti-poor people, pro -military and most importantly pro-obstructionist , the party of "no", the party of "do nothing"---- I don't think the GOP has a chance to regain the White House until they make some major changes.
And he sends his army of straw men to attack!!!!

You disarmed yourself in your opening salvo, no one will take you seriously after a sophomoric post like that.
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 02-12-2014, 11:10 AM
 
14,293 posts, read 9,660,473 times
Reputation: 4254
Quote:
Originally Posted by wutitiz View Post
WIth their current platform of hallucinatory rhetoric, it's tough to imagine Democrats making any headway. But nonetheless, the past 4 presidential elections have been pretty close to 50-50. They have all hinged on relatively minor details. I don't see a reason to think that it will be any different in 2016.
After the 2012 election of Obama, I don't think many people are paying attention to what government is doing.

The OP is basing his/her assumptions that the average voter is using a rational thought process when they go to the polls on election day.
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
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.


Reply
Please update this thread with any new information or opinions. This open thread is still read by thousands of people, so we encourage all additional points of view.

Quick Reply
Message:

Over $104,000 in prizes was already given out to active posters on our forum and additional giveaways are planned!

Go Back   City-Data Forum > General Forums > Politics and Other Controversies

All times are GMT -6. The time now is 07:42 AM.

© 2005-2024, Advameg, Inc. · Please obey Forum Rules · Terms of Use and Privacy Policy · Bug Bounty

City-Data.com - Contact Us - Archive 1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6, 7, 8, 9, 10, 11, 12, 13, 14, 15, 16, 17, 18, 19, 20, 21, 22, 23, 24, 25, 26, 27, 28, 29, 30, 31, 32, 33, 34, 35, 36, 37 - Top