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.
I think the authors' single reference to race/demographics is when they showed their hand as to the motive of this piece.
Despite all their talk of gridlock and campaigning, what I read in that article was:
"The voters that Democrats rely upon to win elections are disinterested and apathetic and will only show up for big elections. When we have a presidential candidate, especially one from an oppressed group (African-American, female, LGBT etc.) preferably with some star power and pop culture appeal, we can count on young people and non-whites to show up in large numbers and blindly check "Ds" on the rest of the ballot. The midterms are dominated by angry, old, rich white men and that's why the last couple non-presidential elections have been tough for Democrats. This trend could continue. We need to change that."
It really is time for the New York Times to go out of business. They are not a legitimate news agency and have not been so in my adult life time.
financially speaking they have also been in decline for some time. Of course if they every did falter, they would only end up as the next government bailout, cementing their position as the American left's version of Pravda.
It really is time for the New York Times to go out of business. They are not a legitimate news agency and have not been so in my adult life time.
financially speaking they have also been in decline for some time. Of course if they every did falter, they would only end up as the next government bailout, cementing their position as the American left's version of Pravda.
The NYT is a mouthpiece of the WH administration.
They even had the WH vet their articles/opinion pieces before publishing them. (The Guardian exposed that part).
It really is time for the New York Times to go out of business. They are not a legitimate news agency and have not been so in my adult life time.
financially speaking they have also been in decline for some time. Of course if they every did falter, they would only end up as the next government bailout, cementing their position as the American left's version of Pravda.
Years ago I used to read the NYT faithfully. It always had a liberal slant, but also had the most in-depth coverage of any US paper. Sometime during the 1990's it seemed to gradually go full-moonbat. When the Jayson Blair saga (NYT reporter who was just making stuff up and writing it) unfolded, it did not surprise me in the least. I saw the NYT go from jewel to junk in my lifetime.
We're getting dangerously close to calling for an outright dictatorship.
Just a matter of time.
A dictatorship is more suited to small Banana Republics.
What would overtake the USA is more like what happened in the USSR but with a twist. There are too many of us not willing to bow to an authoritarian governing body meaning there will be much bloodshed.
Sure, dumbstruck libs will follow progressive to the gulags if promised free food, shelter and clothing. They don't know what lies on the other side of the fence where they have been told, but never seen, the grass is greener.
I actually agree with that opinion piece about getting rid of two-year terms for representatives. It is an appallingly short period of time. Why not, as suggested, amend the Constitution to provide for four-year terms to coincide with presidential elections?
Because the purpose of mid term elections is to give the people a chance to alter the balance of power. If all the elections happen at once, then you have an extended period of time in which the people do not get a voice. By staggering elections, the parties are held accountable to the people at more frequent intervals.
Quote:
As it stands, those House members who will take their oath of office next January will have to quickly begin the process all over again for the run in 2016. They are perpetually running for office.
The solution to that is to alter how elections are held, not when. The politicians should be less concerned about re-election and more concerned about good governance. Altering the terms and election schedule is enabling their cynical self absorption. It's like saying "okay you care more about your re-election than you do about doing your job, so if we let you stay in office for a few more years could you pretty please spend at least part of that time concentrating on the people rather than on yourself?"
We shouldn't have to offer politicians an extended term of service in order to bribe them into doing the job they were elected to do.
Quote:
I rather like that the Senate members serve for six years, with a third of the seats up every two years. So I disagree with that part of the article.
The statement in the opinion piece about off-year elections being dominant by older whites is silly and not a viable reason for doing away with the mid-year elections for Representatives. Many people could have voted yesterday; that they did not is their own business, and changes in the system should not be changed based on that reason.
I note that the author of the opinion piece also calls for limiting the number of terms a person may serve. I also reject that. If people of a district wish to send the same person back every two years, for decades, that should be their right.
I disagree. The nation is founded on the idea that we will have citizen leaders, not professional politicians. They are not supposed to spend 30 years in Washington DC insulated from real life and from the constituents they are supposed to be representing. Term limits would ensure that. Term limits would also deal with the problem you mentioned above, of politicians being more concerned about elections than about governing the country.
Location: Democratic Peoples Republic of Redneckistan
11,078 posts, read 15,082,780 times
Reputation: 3937
Quote:
Originally Posted by Spaten_Drinker
Run away from the punchbowl. The Democrats finally see the turd floating in it called "Obama".
Most dems saw that two years into his first term..no surprise there
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.
