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.

 

Pelosi Outdoes Herself: Guess Who Is To Blame For The Recent DNC Loss? YOU ARE!

page: 4
37
<< 1  2  3    5 >>

log in

join
share:

posted on Nov, 8 2014 @ 04:30 PM
link   
a reply to: sheepslayer247

Well, what she fails to understand is that if her voters felt they had something worth voting for, they would have gotten their duffs off the couch to go vote. That is the key to voter turnout, no?





posted on Nov, 8 2014 @ 04:36 PM
link   

originally posted by: ketsuko
a reply to: sheepslayer247

Well, what she fails to understand is that if her voters felt they had something worth voting for, they would have gotten their duffs off the couch to go vote. That is the key to voter turnout, no?



Agreed. There is no question that the Democrats may have not given their "base" something worth showing up for. But it is beyond me to say that she didn't understand that. She most likely does because she is not a dumby.

The real matter, as it pertains to this thread, is whether or not she was actually blaming the voters for the loss. If we look at what she said, that notion is incorrect. She blamed the lack of voter outreach and their ability to pull people in to the polls.



posted on Nov, 8 2014 @ 04:38 PM
link   
Man wrestling is awesome ain't it?... wait we are talking politics.. sorry..



posted on Nov, 8 2014 @ 04:39 PM
link   
/sigh

There is about a 55/45 or 45/55 swing in the US between the two major parties.

Considering registered voters about 35 percent are Democrat now, 25 percent are Republican and 40 percent are Independent or Swing Voters. (Gallup poll, if you need it, Google it.)

About 70% of the Electorate (those eligible to vote) are registered in the US based on the last Census.

What we see is that the swing voters, the independents, moderates, or what have you go from side to side almost literally like a pendulum, although over the course of American history, that has favored Democrats over Republicans.

This election was right in line with all the other Midterms, what was expected to happened, happened.

The Republicans have their chance (again) ... let's see what they do with it!



posted on Nov, 8 2014 @ 04:41 PM
link   

originally posted by: beezzer
a reply to: sheepslayer247

In reality, I could care less about the word-garbage that comes out of her mouth.

She can blame the voters.
We can blame the politicians.

Blaming doesn't change a damned thing.



Ok. I can agree.

But I would like to know what goal can be achieved or change that can be made by taking someone's comments out of context.

The only achievement I see in this thread is yet another chance for partisan hacks to take something out of context just so they can dog-pile on someone they disagree with ideologically.

What does that change?



posted on Nov, 8 2014 @ 04:41 PM
link   
a reply to: sheepslayer247

OK, so let's suppose this is true.

What will 2016 show us?

The massive new Democrat majority and caring to vote ... was that all solely because of Barack Obama or is it solely because those voters ONLY can be bothered to get off the couch one day every four years? So, if they only care enough because of Obama, and he's not running in 2016, then the Democrats better hope they engaging to run as POTUS to get them off the couch again. If they can't, then the Democrats are in trouble.

If the Democrat vote only cares about showing up once every four years, then it says equally bad things about those voters. It basically says they equate the power in the country to the President, and they feel he (or she) is the only really important thing to ever vote for. This reflects how really stupid and uninformed they actually are as a voter base.



posted on Nov, 8 2014 @ 04:48 PM
link   

originally posted by: texasgirl
Well, I have to say most of my friends are Democrats (I'm independent) and they went to the polls to vote. BUT THEY VOTED FOR REPUBLICAN CANDIDATES.

Pelosi needs to get a clue. There are Democrats out there disgusted with Democrats. PERIOD.


I was a republican for years before the party left me for dead.

Voting for their established opposites under such circumstances doesn't do the trick. It makes the politicians panic, and double down on stupid, thinking that they got voted out because they didn't do enough stupid the first time around.

Voting for a NEW opposition, one with a NEW platform that hasn't been entrenched yet, might do the trick, however - if the vote is in sufficient numbers to actually leave a mark.

I'm with Grimpachi on this one. Go Independent, Libertarian, or simply Unaffiliated. Anything but the Big Two. Bring fresh blood into the mudpit to shake 'em up.

Send a real message.

Send it loudly.

ETA: I spent years in serious "disagreements" with communists, but I tell you right now that I would vote for CPUSA before I would vote for either R or D.

At least with them, you know what you're getting and what you're up against if they win.



edit on 2014/11/8 by nenothtu because: (no reason given)



posted on Nov, 8 2014 @ 04:51 PM
link   
So, following this logic, that a party only wins when its constituents are not too "lazy" to get off the couch (who says there are no code words, huh?) from 1949 - 1979 the Republicans were "just too lazy" to vote? Then again from 87-93?

Is that what we're saying here? Because the Democrats dominated Congress during those terms.

About US Politics -Party in Power - Congress

I bet that's not what's being said here. What could "lazy" possibly imply one wonders?



posted on Nov, 8 2014 @ 05:02 PM
link   
a reply to: ketsuko

I don't know why Dems had low turnout. Maybe because it's a midterm election, the Democrats were not saying anything new...etc....etc.



If the Democrat vote only cares about showing up once every four years, then it says equally bad things about those voters. It basically says they equate the power in the country to the President, and they feel he (or she) is the only really important thing to ever vote for.


Considering that we don't really know why they didn't vote, that statement is quite presumptuous and silly.



This reflects how really stupid and uninformed they actually are as a voter base.


Have you considered the possibly that a section of the Democrat base has become aware that the party does not serve their best interest and have decided not show up this election? On the other hand, the Republicans have yet to fully recognize that the same reality exists with their party, yet they line up at the polls like good little drones?

I find it hypocritical to say that one voter base in stupid or uninformed when the same applies to the other party's base.

Luckily, I voted Libertarian and so I can laugh at both the Left and Right, point my finger in their face and say....MORONS!



posted on Nov, 8 2014 @ 05:09 PM
link   

originally posted by: ketsuko
a reply to: Grimpachi

The problem is that they don't count those votes. Even if I had gone and written in a name for every line, no one tallies that because it's one vote for some other person no one knows. It's effectively throwing my vote away.

Now if it were a law that they had to tally all those one votes into a generic write-in pool and show the libertarian tally all the time ... It might be different.



They tallied them in all the races I was watching. Roughly 10% of the vote seemed to be going to "other", which I believe was composed of disenfranchised and disenchanted former Republicans. had the Republicans not screwed the pooch and abandoned the people years ago, those votes would have likely gone to them, making a much more impressive win.

Along the same lines, had those votes been matched by equally determined and disenchanted Democrats, the Earth would have shaken.

At the very least, a huge number of politicians would have gone pale.

We might have seen some "Hope and Change".

Maybe next time.



posted on Nov, 8 2014 @ 05:24 PM
link   

originally posted by: ketsuko
a reply to: sheepslayer247

OK, so let's suppose this is true.

What will 2016 show us?

The massive new Democrat majority and caring to vote ... was that all solely because of Barack Obama or is it solely because those voters ONLY can be bothered to get off the couch one day every four years? So, if they only care enough because of Obama, and he's not running in 2016, then the Democrats better hope they engaging to run as POTUS to get them off the couch again. If they can't, then the Democrats are in trouble.

If the Democrat vote only cares about showing up once every four years, then it says equally bad things about those voters. It basically says they equate the power in the country to the President, and they feel he (or she) is the only really important thing to ever vote for. This reflects how really stupid and uninformed they actually are as a voter base.



To the first, agreed. The Dems will and always have got off the couch
to vote for the big safety net and all the trimmings of big government, at
everyone's expense. From feedback in my area this is unilateral meltdown
though... both sides are hurting. The DC reality check hasn't stopped ANY
spending since 2007; Brad Sherman warned us about the big fat drama and
the bogus rationale for the big bailout-- and it stayed true.

Now we're almost all of us too small to succeed, and the people running
things too big to jail. The dynamic is too late to avert from the final dest.
Too many of us have been scraping for quarters in the sofa while Wall St.,
back in 2010, picked up a Christmas bonus of about 24 BILLION dollars.
That amounted to one third of all the Federal Reserve notes in circulation.

Don't think the increasing number of us dropped off the flat Earth didn't
notice. That money they're printing isn't for us.

Now Nancy gets to start one last blame game at just the time when the
change we need is to put away the paper bang pistols and hit the stack of
bills on Harry Reid's desk... just for starters.
Obstructionism on both sides of the aisle has just recently been cause
for termination from elected office. There's the mandate, bipartisan...
this might have been our last chance to have a say before things go hot.

I also hope whatever advantage in numbers is used wisely.
edit on 8-11-2014 by derfreebie because: Beware the swords bangin on the shields, wait for them.

edit on 8-11-2014 by derfreebie because: (no reason given)



posted on Nov, 8 2014 @ 05:35 PM
link   
a reply to: sheepslayer247

There is that possibility, but then it's poor form for Pelosi to be blaming their loss on the voters in any way isn't it? Because you can call it what you like, but basically, she is blaming their loss on the voters. If the voters don't want to vote, then no matter how much you call and badger them to ... they won't do it. And you are blaming your loss on them.



posted on Nov, 8 2014 @ 05:36 PM
link   
a reply to: Willtell

Willtell, I have to ask this, being short-sighted and unable to see beyond the end of my nose and all... but can you explain to me (kindergarten terms might be helpful) WHY they would want to "destroy the world"? Don't they have to live here, too? Or have they got some secret base on another planet that they just haven't told us about?



posted on Nov, 8 2014 @ 05:44 PM
link   

originally posted by: Gryphon66

That said, I wish there was a decent, non-right-wing third-party option.



You could always vote Republican - they've hitched themselves way to the left (or what passed for "left" long ago, before people started redefining political terms to suit an agenda) of what they were back when they were Republicans instead of Neocons.

I mean, THERE'S a non-right-wing alternative to the Democrats.



posted on Nov, 8 2014 @ 05:45 PM
link   

originally posted by: ketsuko
a reply to: sheepslayer247

There is that possibility, but then it's poor form for Pelosi to be blaming their loss on the voters in any way isn't it? Because you can call it what you like, but basically, she is blaming their loss on the voters. If the voters don't want to vote, then no matter how much you call and badger them to ... they won't do it. And you are blaming your loss on them.



I tend to take people at their word. If this is what she said, remember that this is not a direct quote....only a second hand account, she is specific in that it was a failure in voter turnout and that they needed to step up their efforts to get people to the polls.

There's no reason to have to read between the lines or say "that's basically what she said" or "pretty much said" because it's right there for you to read.

She is not blaming voters, she is blaming her party for a lack of a good turnout.



posted on Nov, 8 2014 @ 05:50 PM
link   
a reply to: Hefficide

Thanks for the thread, Heff. This one should bump to the top
before Election Day +7. Surprised if it doesn't, look who's slinging
the righteous hash on our plate. I'll just let this cool a second....

It's astonishing how far disconnected from the people anybody
had to be saying what Nancy did. Sure, failed policies this cycle
are due to sandbagging... and we just happened to get in the
way as the body politic to be the beneficiaries.

The "mandate" was explained as only a fringe quantity of voters:
maybe a squeak from the Intensive Care unit of "Get to work,
we're dyin' out here."

Now If we can do some bipartisan surgery on the management
style that got us here. I picture with some relish the metaphor
of a sudden recall... not unlike the PFC with the flamethrower
getting a couple of unfortunately well placed rounds at Red Dog.
Can't debark with too much ammo Nancy, here ya go...



posted on Nov, 8 2014 @ 06:18 PM
link   

originally posted by: netbound

2 - Obama got the ball rolling on healthcare. The ACA is working much better than originally anticipated. Millions of folks who previously would have gone to the emergency room and then stiffed the hospital now have insurance. Unless you had a garbage insurance policy in the first place, you were not forced to participate in the ACA. Health costs are growing at the lowest rate in the past 50 years, the CBO scored the bill as reducing the deficit, etc.

But, there are a few things about the bill needing attention. Instead of repealing and scrapping the whole thing, why not embrace it and work to improve it. The American people would be grateful. Remember, ACA (including the mandate) was a Republican idea hatched by the Heritage Foundation before it was a Democratic idea. So, it’s OK - go ahead and give it a shot.



I don't care what they do with it - trash it, shine it up and repaint it, beef it up or starve it to death - as long as they get rid of the mandate. They can fly it from a flag pole for all I care, as long as I'm not forced to participate in it and make purchases that I neither need nor want on a legislative fiat.

I dunno what a "Heritage Foundation" is - we didn't have one when I was a Republican, which leads me to think that it's probably a Neocon invention from after the hostile takeover of the party.

You know, more "left winger" fluff.



posted on Nov, 8 2014 @ 06:25 PM
link   

originally posted by: nenothtu


I dunno what a "Heritage Foundation" is - we didn't have one when I was a Republican, which leads me to think that it's probably a Neocon invention from after the hostile takeover of the party.

You know, more "left winger" fluff.




I tis Neno.... it's really bad at it's core, they have no idea what they do , but the spend a LOT of money doing it..



posted on Nov, 8 2014 @ 06:27 PM
link   

originally posted by: RedDorothy
a reply to: Hefficide

The He man woman hater club 7



I a woman, and well knowing Heff as well as I do, can honestly say that gender doesn't play into his thoughts about this subject..

Hell he could have blasted me 9 times over for being a starship nerd but doesn't....



posted on Nov, 8 2014 @ 06:46 PM
link   

originally posted by: vkey08

I tis Neno.... it's really bad at it's core, they have no idea what they do , but the spend a LOT of money doing it..



I googled it. Funny Stuff. On Wikipedia it claims to have been a leader in the conservative movement under Reagan, but I don't recall ever hearing of it back then.

Then there was this gem (bold mine):




The Heritage Foundation is an American conservative think tank based in Washington, D.C. Heritage's stated mission is to "formulate and promote conservative public policies based on the principles of free enterprise, limited government, individual freedom, traditional American values, and a strong national defense".



That right there is what we out in the hinterlands call an "oxymoron" - a statement that contradicts itself, if indeed they were the source of the ACA. The "individual mandate" absolutely flies in the face of both "limited government" and especially "individual freedom". The whole package absolutely mauls "free enterprise", like a bear attack.

It flies directly in the face of "conservatism" and "right winger-ness". Just more evidence of the leftward shift of the Republican Party under Neocon rule.




edit on 2014/11/8 by nenothtu because: (no reason given)




top topics



 
37
<< 1  2  3    5 >>

log in

join