It looks like you're using an Ad Blocker.

Please white-list or disable AboveTopSecret.com in your ad-blocking tool.

Thank you.

 

Some features of ATS will be disabled while you continue to use an ad-blocker.

 

GOP set to seize the Senate

page: 5
18
<< 2  3  4    6  7  8 >>

log in

join
share:

posted on Oct, 17 2014 @ 01:35 PM
link   

originally posted by: beezzer
a reply to: luciddream

Actually, it provides a forum to discuss the potential impact that a GOP majority in the senate and house may have on US politics.

If, what many are saying, they are all just shills and have no better ideological foundation than the DNC, then we won't see any change.

If, on the other hand, there is an ideological difference, then perhaps Obama can ready his "veto" pen and start taking responsibility.


Do remember, we've had a Republican supermajority before and it wasn't all that long ago. From 2004 to 2006 there was a Republican President as well as majorities in both the House and Senate. Coincidentally that's about the time that the approval rate of congress started hovering around single digits.


originally posted by: jjkenobi
I'm a lifelong conservative, and honestly I'd rather let the Democrats have complete control while Obama is Pres (like the first two years of Obama's presidency). What Democrats do best is blame other people for everything. Put them in total control and they (should) have no one to blame. Although if you read back through the news during Obama's first two years when they had the House and Senate they still blamed the minority control Republicans for obstructing things (LOL!).

If GOP wins Senate and House the Democrat talking points are set for two years. It gets so tiring.


That's because they did. The minority party still has power, particularly in the House. I'm not saying they shouldn't disagree but the mandate since Obama has become president has been to try and trainwreck his presidency at any cost. I fully expect the roles to reverse in 2017.




posted on Oct, 17 2014 @ 01:36 PM
link   
a reply to: Aazadan

I
Lol, none of them are. When Georgie boy decided to start extended executive powers, the constitution, rights, bipartisanship, et cetera all went out the proverbial window. Obama has done nothing but extended Bush's policies. The "patriot" act and NSA spying extensions are a fine example... Oh, but we dare not speak of those origins. OH, no!
edit on 17-10-2014 by SpeakerofTruth because: (no reason given)



posted on Oct, 17 2014 @ 01:49 PM
link   

originally posted by: SpeakerofTruth
a reply to: Aazadan

I
Lol, none of them are. When Georgie boy decided to start extended executive powers, the constitution, rights, bipartisanship, et cetera all went out the proverbial window. Obama has done nothing but extended Bush's policies. The "patriot" act and NSA spying extensions are a fine example... Oh, but we dare not speak of those origins. OH, no!


I agree with all of this. In 2008 I voted Ron Paul but I would be lying if I said I wasn't happy with Obama got elected. Out of the candidates who could really win (Obama or McCain) I believed Obama to not just be the least bad but actually good. I believed the hope and change hype. By 2010 I realized that he was the third term of Bush but with better PR. When 2012 came around I again voted third party and had no preference between if it would really be Obama or Romney. Most of the ideas Romney campaigned on were things Obama was already doing in practice.

Since about 2010 I've stopped seeing our system as even two party I see it as one party and there's a good amount of evidence for it:
1. Gerrymandered districts that make the primary the only election that matters so that candidates are running against their own party.
2. The same major legislation has come from Obama as from Bush.

And I could go on.



posted on Oct, 17 2014 @ 02:08 PM
link   
a reply to: sheepslayer247




With examples such as what you highlighted, one does have to wonder if the Left really is the socialist commies they are said to be.


The Left is anarchist, socialist... not liberal capitalist. There's little to no representation for us... just the centrists, moderates are represented by the democrats.



posted on Oct, 17 2014 @ 02:10 PM
link   
You're exactly right!a reply to: Metallicus



posted on Oct, 17 2014 @ 02:12 PM
link   
a reply to: Kali74

I think since sheep said socialist commies, he was kidding.
As one can not be both and sheep knows that



posted on Oct, 17 2014 @ 02:18 PM
link   
a reply to: Aazadan I don't understand those who can't grasp the concept that Republican or Democrat labels mean nothing. All politicians are liars but not all liars are politicians. Freedom of speech, freedom of religion, "the right of the people to be secure in their persons, houses, papers and effects" has suffered under all political flags. True representatives of the people are a thing of the past. Those who would represent "the people" as they should can't overcome the big political machines and thereby win any elections. Don't know what the answer is but it's not Obama and his minions and it's not the GOP. It's kind of difficult to see a future where true freedom and the true meaning of what American started out to be thrives.



posted on Oct, 17 2014 @ 02:21 PM
link   

originally posted by: Kali74
a reply to: sheepslayer247




With examples such as what you highlighted, one does have to wonder if the Left really is the socialist commies they are said to be.


The Left is anarchist, socialist... not liberal capitalist. There's little to no representation for us... just the centrists, moderates are represented by the democrats.


I know. That's why I laugh when people call the Left socialists or commies. The Democrat party is slightly right of center and it's leadership does exactly the same things as the so-called conservative republicans.

I also laugh when people root for the Dems or Reps taking over the house or senate. The results will be the same and I compare them to the type of people that invest their heart and soul in to their favorite football team. It doesn't matter if their team actually sucks....it's their team and they can do no wrong.



posted on Oct, 17 2014 @ 02:24 PM
link   

originally posted by: Sremmos80
a reply to: Kali74

I think since sheep said socialist commies, he was kidding.
As one can not be both and sheep knows that


I was making fun of those that spit-out those words in a derogatory way towards the Democrats. You know....."Obama is a muslim socialist commie". That kind of talk.



posted on Oct, 17 2014 @ 03:16 PM
link   

originally posted by: mdl59
a reply to: Aazadan I don't understand those who can't grasp the concept that Republican or Democrat labels mean nothing. All politicians are liars but not all liars are politicians. Freedom of speech, freedom of religion, "the right of the people to be secure in their persons, houses, papers and effects" has suffered under all political flags. True representatives of the people are a thing of the past. Those who would represent "the people" as they should can't overcome the big political machines and thereby win any elections. Don't know what the answer is but it's not Obama and his minions and it's not the GOP. It's kind of difficult to see a future where true freedom and the true meaning of what American started out to be thrives.



The esquire article posted in another thread recently had a rather good explanation for this coming from those in Congress. Basically through gerrymandering to secure districts we have removed the ability for parties to compete which traditionally involves appealing to the center and moderating positions. Instead the challenge in winning a district is in winning your primary which involves appealing to ideologues. If there's one thing ideologues love it's more and more extremist ideas. This has had the effect of radicalizing the people we send to Washington on both ends of the spectrum which results in no one being able to do anything.

To the casual observer who votes but doesn't follow politics this creates the appearance that they need to send more of their guys to Washington but in reality this only makes the problem worse.

Since 2006 I have voted third party for every candidate. Other than share my views with anyone who will listen and cast my vote I'm not sure what else I can do. I truly believe that the only way to get some moderation and compromise back into the system is to elect people who are outside those systems. Those are the people who can redraw congressional districts to be competitive. Those are the people who can change the rules on how debates are run, and who gets TV time. Those are the people who aren't beholden to the existing power structure. And those are the people who most need the support.



posted on Oct, 17 2014 @ 03:39 PM
link   
 


off-topic post removed to prevent thread-drift


 



posted on Oct, 17 2014 @ 03:41 PM
link   

originally posted by: Aazadan

originally posted by: Bassago
a reply to: Aazadan



If Republicans get the Senate and keep the House congress will pass as much inane sh*t as it can in order to force the president to veto and make him look like the real obstructionist.


Since the House has passed over 300 bills which were sent to the Senate but were never allowed to reach the floor thanks to Harry Reid then yeah, that's about right. Always good to shine a spotlight on the obstructionists whether it's Reid or Obama.


Harry Reid has done his part for sure, but he's not a member of the party that runs on a platform of trying to make government as dysfunctional as possible.


So what is his party? It's ironic that you quoted exactly his effort to make government as dysfunctional as possible while trying to defend him AND his party. He most likely hasn't read a one and doesn't give a s#t , only sitting on them because they are submitted by the Republican party. That IS dysfunctional!

rolls eyes and shakes head
edit on 17-10-2014 by StoutBroux because: (no reason given)



posted on Oct, 17 2014 @ 03:47 PM
link   
Labels be damned. The truth of the matter is that if we, The People, can't reach some level of ( about to use a very dirty word here that will set some folks totally off their rockers ) compromises - then those who adhere strongly to their labels and to the two existing parties will continue giving the rest of us the shaft.



posted on Oct, 17 2014 @ 03:49 PM
link   

originally posted by: Hefficide

Labels be damned. The truth of the matter is that if we, The People, can't reach some level of ( about to use a very dirty word here that will set some folks totally off their rockers ) compromises - then those who adhere strongly to their labels and to the two existing parties will continue giving the rest of us the shaft.



I happen to agree.

But many see the definition of compromise the same as surrender.



posted on Oct, 17 2014 @ 03:50 PM
link   
Google " Progressive Party "

some results....

Global.....
Progressive Party





The United States Progressive Party of 1948 was a left-wing political party that ran former Vice President Henry A. Wallace of Iowa for president and U.S. Senator Glen H. Taylor of Idaho for vice president in 1948.
.......................

The Communist Party USA did not field a presidential candidate, and instead endorsed Wallace for President


Progressive Party (United States, 1948)





Authoritarianism is the issue.

All Authoritarians are Left Wing.

Including Fascists.

The political/social principals are obvious.




posted on Oct, 17 2014 @ 04:35 PM
link   
Republicans win the Senate?? Can you spell: "immediate impeachment"??
Only reason the House has not filed articles is they know the current Senate would not
convict.

Probably the only thing that might possibly save America from the mental illness known as Liberalism...



posted on Oct, 17 2014 @ 04:41 PM
link   

originally posted by: SubSea
Republicans win the Senate?? Can you spell: "immediate impeachment"??
Only reason the House has not filed articles is they know the current Senate would not
convict.

Probably the only thing that might possibly save America from the mental illness known as Liberalism...


They will not impeach Obama. By the time the proceedings took place, he'd be out of office anyway.

Liberalism a mental illness? Please.

We need saved from necon fascists, not liberals.



posted on Oct, 17 2014 @ 04:45 PM
link   
a reply to: xuenchen

We've been over this before.


Right-wing authoritarianism (RWA) is a personality and ideological variable studied in political, social, and personality psychology. Right-wing authoritarians are people who have a high degree of willingness to submit to authorities they perceive as established and legitimate, who adhere to societal conventions and norms, and who are hostile and punitive in their attitudes towards people who don't adhere to them. They value uniformity and are in favour of using group authority, including coercion, to achieve it



Right-wing authoritarianism is measured by the RWA scale. The first scored item on the scale states, "Our country desperately needs a mighty leader who will do what has to be done to destroy the radical new ways and sinfulness that are ruining us." People who strongly agree with this are showing a tendency toward authoritarian submission (Our country desperately needs a mighty leader), authoritarian aggression (who will do what has to be done to destroy), and conventionalism (the radical new ways and sinfulness that are ruining us)


Sounds familiar doesn't it? Seems to me that there are a bunch of Right-Wing authoritarians around here that say things just like that....you authoritarian you.

Source
edit on 10/17/2014 by sheepslayer247 because: (no reason given)



posted on Oct, 17 2014 @ 05:00 PM
link   
a reply to: beezzer

“Based on strikingly irrational beliefs and emotions, modern liberals relentlessly undermine the most important principles on which our freedoms were founded,” says Dr. Lyle Rossiter, author of the new book, “The Liberal Mind: The Psychological Causes of Political Madness.” “Like spoiled, angry children, they rebel against the normal responsibilities of adulthood and demand that a parental government meet their needs from cradle to grave.”
Read more at www.wnd.com...



posted on Oct, 17 2014 @ 05:03 PM
link   
a reply to: sheepslayer247

Interesting "source" from that wiki piece.

it's the "[1]" after the first paragraph....

Three Kinds of “Conservatism” (by Karen Stenner)

Could be "controlled opposition" with Liberal backing.

Hmmm.




top topics



 
18
<< 2  3  4    6  7  8 >>

log in

join