downzy

US Politics/Elections Thread

10,460 posts in this topic

Nothing will change. Nothing ever changes.

Promises that not one of these politicians keeps.

Now Texas will have a new governor that will probably be the same as the old one was.

It's a sad joke.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Gas was $1.75 a gallon when Obama was first elected President.

Not where I live.

Yeah fuck no. It was 3 bucks since I've been able to drive (2006)

This year is the lowest I've ever paid for gas. Maybe MAYBE the summer of 2008 came pretty close when it dipped below 3 for a week or two.

ISIS are selling oil for 25-45 a barrel.

I can't say I really give a fuck you weirdo? :lol:

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Gas was $1.75 a gallon when Obama was first elected President.

Not where I live.

Yeah fuck no. It was 3 bucks since I've been able to drive (2006)

This year is the lowest I've ever paid for gas. Maybe MAYBE the summer of 2008 came pretty close when it dipped below 3 for a week or two.

ISIS are selling oil for 25-45 a barrel.

I can't say I really give a fuck you weirdo? :lol:

nothing good to say

keep your mouth shut

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

.

As is a 70% increase over a 6-year period.

Sounds like you've become conditioned to overinflated gas prices ... exactly what the oil companies want. ;)

I've just adapted to it. And I started adapting to it when gas hit $4 per gallon for a while during the Bush Administration. Amazing how gas finally went back down to the sub $2 range during the election year, huh? ;)

But the election had nothing to do with the gas prices dropping so much over the past couple months, Obama is the one who made it happen! He deserves all the credit!

(you wrote sub $2 but I know you meant sub $3)

I was talking about 2008.

A lot of major stuff had been going down back then, including the worst stock market crash in decades.

More recently, why do you think literally a couple days before this week's election the gas prices dipped below $3 for the first time since December 2010? That's nearly 4 years of prices between $3-$4 gallon.

Not nearly as bad as going from over $4 per gallon to under $2 per gallon in 2008.... ;)

Trust me, oil companies prefer Republican presidents/Republican politicians.

Edited by Kasanova King

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

It's being reported that only 36.4 percent of eligible Americas voted in last week's mid-term elections. To put that in historical context, that's the lowest voter turnout in any election cycle since World War II.

The sad irony of all of this is that the more apathetic Americans get about politics, the less they vote, and the more room for moneyed interest to further muck up the system. All of this then causes more apathy. Hopefully something other than war or calamity can break the cycle.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

It's being reported that only 36.4 percent of eligible Americas voted in last week's mid-term elections. To put that in historical context, that's the lowest voter turnout in any election cycle since World War II.

The sad irony of all of this is that the more apathetic Americans get about politics, the less they vote, and the more room for moneyed interest to further muck up the system. All of this then causes more apathy. Hopefully something other than war or calamity can break the cycle.

Yay I was a member of the voting minority.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

It's being reported that only 36.4 percent of eligible Americas voted in last week's mid-term elections. To put that in historical context, that's the lowest voter turnout in any election cycle since World War II.

The sad irony of all of this is that the more apathetic Americans get about politics, the less they vote, and the more room for moneyed interest to further muck up the system. All of this then causes more apathy. Hopefully something other than war or calamity can break the cycle.

Yeah that's a terrible figure.... where I was working (a usually high turnout area even for midterms) was only 48%... compared to 57%, 55%, 58%, in previous midterm years. And as always, low turnout = bad for the blue team.

I can safely say though, I am more qualified to be a congressman or senator than many of the people who were just elected last Tuesday.

EDIT: To be fair though, I think most of us who have posted in this thread meet those qualifications as well. They're not very grand qualifications.... :lol:

Edited by OmarBradley

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

It's being reported that only 36.4 percent of eligible Americas voted in last week's mid-term elections. To put that in historical context, that's the lowest voter turnout in any election cycle since World War II.

The sad irony of all of this is that the more apathetic Americans get about politics, the less they vote, and the more room for moneyed interest to further muck up the system. All of this then causes more apathy. Hopefully something other than war or calamity can break the cycle.

Yeah that's a terrible figure.... where I was working (a usually high turnout area even for midterms) was only 48%... compared to 57%, 55%, 58%, in previous midterm years. And as always, low turnout = bad for the blue team.

I can safely say though, I am more qualified to be a congressman or senator than many of the people who were just elected last Tuesday.

EDIT: To be fair though, I think most of us who have posted in this thread meet those qualifications as well. They're not very grand qualifications.... :lol:

With a guy like Jim Inhofe, who doesn't believe in climate change but will now chair the House committee that oversees environmental protection, I think you're probably right on your last assertion ;)

http://www.politico.com/story/2014/11/jim-inhofe-112757.html

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

so 63.6% have no faith in the political process. :shock:

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

so 63.6% have no faith in the political process. :shock:

Well, it doesn't help when one party's campaign consisted of warnings about Ebola being trafficked across the U.S. - Mexican border by members of ISIS (and somehow this is all Obama's fault) while the other party decided not to campaign at all.

Mind you, mid-terms are generally low-turn out affairs. Presidential elections have generally averaged 55 percent since 1972, though they have been trending up the last three Presidential election cycles.

1 person likes this

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Looking back, I don't see anyway Republicans could have lost the mid-terms. All they have to do is say, "Obama likes icecream," and the base cries about a Socialist Government takeover of Dairy Queen and show up at the polls. The Democrats problem is instead of getting in there and getting things done, they spend the whole time trying to be the good guys and meet the fringe lunatics in the middle(which still ends up being the right of center). They just leave their base jaded.

The only voters that can be happy are the people that prefer to watch the government do absolutely nothing about anything. Well, except for Benghazi commissions and hail mary attempts to repeal the ACA.

1 person likes this

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

If you look at mid-term elections in general, the Democrats have only done well in one (2006) in the last 24 years. Generally, mid-terms are about negatively-motivated voters, in that those who want to protest the current President will find reason to vote. Democrats were fiercely motivated in 2006 as a result of W.'s handling of the Iraq War. And the Republicans were very angry in 1994, 2010, and 2014. Really, it's the party with the angriest voters that generally performs better in mid-terms. With Obama as President, it's been tough to motivate Democrats or Independents to vote for the status quo. It's just the nature of the beast (couple with increased gerrymandering that makes it all but impossible for Democrats to retake the House).

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Thought about starting a thread about this but figured we've got enough American-based political threads so including it here:

House intel panel debunks many Benghazi theories

http://bigstory.ap.org/article/ecc3a300383445d5a90dd6ca764c9e15/house-intel-panel-debunks-many-benghazi-theories

The GOP-controlled House Intelligence Committee has released the results of a two-year investigation into the attack on a U.S. diplomatic compound in Benghazi, Libya, in 2012. The committee found that the CIA and the military acted correctly in response to the attack and did not assert any mistake on the part of the Obama administration’s appointees. The committee debunked several conspiracy-like allegations and found there was no delay in sending a CIA rescue team, no intelligence failure, no missed opportunity for a military rescue, and no evidence to suggest that the CIA was secretly sending weapons from Libya to Syria. The committee also found that after the attack, intelligence about who the attackers were and why they attacked was contradictory, which led U.S. Ambassador to the United Nations Susan Rice to mistakenly assert that the attack evolved from a protest. The committee found that it was intelligence analysts who made the wrong call and no political appointees acted in bad faith or intentionally misled the public.

I'd like to think that if Hillary ran it would be difficult for the GOP to use Benghazi against her, especially now since the GOP controlled house exonerated her in their own report. But then, I wouldn't put anything past presidential election campaigns.

Interesting finding considering who it's coming from.

2 people like this

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

so 63.6% have no faith in the political process. :shock:

Well, it doesn't help when one party's campaign consisted of warnings about Ebola being trafficked across the U.S. - Mexican border by members of ISIS (and somehow this is all Obama's fault) while the other party decided not to campaign at all.

Mind you, mid-terms are generally low-turn out affairs. Presidential elections have generally averaged 55 percent since 1972, though they have been trending up the last three Presidential election cycles.

I just went to a post election conference in DC last week, bipartisan, multiple panels including chief executives from public affairs groups, data analytics, consultants, and each party's national committee. I thought most of the GOP speakers were actually excellent, the Democrats were good too, but I expected that. But, there was on woman (a founder and chief of a decently prestigious DC consultant firm) who actually faulted the Democrats this election cycle for not having "a unified plan to deal with the potential international disaster that is Ebola." :facepalm: Out of the 15 or so speakers throughout the day, she was by far the most argumentative and rude person there. It's these types of Republicans that show the US that the GOP is just out of touch; unfortunately there's a lot of them. Like I said though, the other GOP speakers were actually pretty excellent in my opinion.

Thought about starting a thread about this but figured we've got enough American-based political threads so including it here:

House intel panel debunks many Benghazi theories

http://bigstory.ap.org/article/ecc3a300383445d5a90dd6ca764c9e15/house-intel-panel-debunks-many-benghazi-theories

The GOP-controlled House Intelligence Committee has released the results of a two-year investigation into the attack on a U.S. diplomatic compound in Benghazi, Libya, in 2012. The committee found that the CIA and the military acted correctly in response to the attack and did not assert any mistake on the part of the Obama administration’s appointees. The committee debunked several conspiracy-like allegations and found there was no delay in sending a CIA rescue team, no intelligence failure, no missed opportunity for a military rescue, and no evidence to suggest that the CIA was secretly sending weapons from Libya to Syria. The committee also found that after the attack, intelligence about who the attackers were and why they attacked was contradictory, which led U.S. Ambassador to the United Nations Susan Rice to mistakenly assert that the attack evolved from a protest. The committee found that it was intelligence analysts who made the wrong call and no political appointees acted in bad faith or intentionally misled the public.

I'd like to think that if Hillary ran it would be difficult for the GOP to use Benghazi against her, especially now since the GOP controlled house exonerated her in their own report. But then, I wouldn't put anything past presidential election campaigns.

Interesting finding considering who it's coming from.

Doesn't matter unfortunately, many within the GOP will still find a way to discredit it, and Hillary for what happened. Sense is not often a considered factory in GOP strategy, especially on the national level.

Edited by OmarBradley

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Doesn't matter unfortunately, many within the GOP will still find a way to discredit it, and Hillary for what happened. Sense is not often a considered factory in GOP strategy, especially on the national level.

Mhm.

http://www.cnn.com/2014/11/23/politics/lindsey-graham-benghazi-report/index.html

:facepalm:

They're getting as bad as conspiracy theorists....seriously...like, wtf is wrong with them? :lol:

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

i wish the national GOP was like the GOP here in NH.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

i wish the national GOP was like the GOP here in NH.

Yeah, no kidding.....according to the national GOP, if you're moderate, you might as well join the other side.... :lol:

1 person likes this

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

i wish the national GOP was like the GOP here in NH.

Yeah, no kidding.....according to the national GOP, if you're moderate, you might as well join the other side.... :lol:

the talk radio in the last week was hilarious especially after the "emperor" obama signed that executive order.

the GOP here in NH supported gay marriage, got medicinal marijuana passed and even got legal recreational marijuana through the house.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

At first glance I thought the thread title was 'U.S Erections'. :D

That's all I have to say.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

mary landrieu crushed in louisiana run off by 14 points. GOP will have 54 seats in the next congress.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I would like to see how an actual conservative president and congress run. Not current GOP, actual conservative. Spending is out of control, and we need to reallocate it to the places it actually matters. Infrastructure, new technology maybe? Adjust tariffs and make it actually sustainable to run a company at home. Sooner or later as American labor falls in price and Chinese rises, jobs will come home. China might be on the upswing, but you can only wrap the people so tight before they revolt. Think of China as the US in the teens and 40's. Willing to sacrifice for the good of the country, because it'll come back to them in tthe long run. Well the US is sick of sacrificing. We've given some leeway and it's time we started changing policy accordingly.

Also, fuck you, fast food workers, you don't deserve 15 an hour.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I would like to see how an actual conservative president and congress run. Not current GOP, actual conservative. Spending is out of control, and we need to reallocate it to the places it actually matters. Infrastructure, new technology maybe? Adjust tariffs and make it actually sustainable to run a company at home. Sooner or later as American labor falls in price and Chinese rises, jobs will come home. China might be on the upswing, but you can only wrap the people so tight before they revolt. Think of China as the US in the teens and 40's. Willing to sacrifice for the good of the country, because it'll come back to them in tthe long run. Well the US is sick of sacrificing. We've given some leeway and it's time we started changing policy accordingly.

Also, fuck you, fast food workers, you don't deserve 15 an hour.

But don't "actual conservatives" believe in no government spending in infrastructure? Isn't the free market suppose to take care of these things?

Also, I highly doubt that America would benefit much with respect to jobs if labour costs rise in China. Too many other Asian countries are already willing to work for less than current Chinese workers. Thailand, Vietnam, Bangladesh, India, Sri Lanka - there are too many other Asian countries filled with people who are willing to work for next to nothing for China's labour costs to affect employment in the US.

And while the deficit is still high, relative to GDP it's no longer a deviation from the historical norm. Moreover, the US has not witness the current rate of deficit reduction since the late 1940s and ealy 1950s.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Actual conservatives believe in not pissing money away just because you have it (or in our case, we don't). Mike Huckabee is notwho we're looking for.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Create an account or sign in to comment

You need to be a member in order to leave a comment

Create an account

Sign up for a new account in our community. It's easy!


Register a new account

Sign in

Already have an account? Sign in here.


Sign In Now

  • Recently Browsing   0 members

    No registered users viewing this page.