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.

 

23 States now have complete Republican control

page: 10
8
<< 7  8  9    11 >>

log in

join
share:

posted on Nov, 10 2014 @ 06:05 AM
link   
a reply to: ThirdEyeofHorus

Very well said, sir.

They will not give up will they. Constant vigilance.




posted on Nov, 10 2014 @ 06:36 AM
link   

originally posted by: Gryphon66
Did I say "Augustus, you're just spinning the election" or not?


Maybe you should tell me what you did mean with your spin comment since I do not want to guess.



So now we're working by analogy, are we? Where you place your wagers are your own affair. The point is, neither you nor I have offered any evidence about the group of "non-voting non-registered" citizens. Until we have data, it's mere supposition.


My analogy was an oversimplification of the macro level election. I am not sure why I would have to offer evidence as I am merely stating that a non-vote is still participation in overall voting process.



I have the sense that you and I are basically in a philosophical debate rather than a factual or forensic one. Your point is that had the non-voters voted, the election results would be different than they are. I concede that point. You stated that there is no way to assign intent to the non-voters, which was my only real contention.


Then I would agree this is more philosophical if we are both agreeing on the aspect of non-votes impacting the election with the caveat that the two-thirds who did not vote may have changed the results. As I, and I believe you also, stated earlier to say they would have changed the results would be to argue intent.


I think it would be interesting to try and research why the non-voting-non-registered folks are in that situation though.


I agree. I would be curious to see whether apathy, disinterest or other factors caused two-thirds of the voting population to either not register or not vote.


Voting is a positive action and has an effect. Non-voting is a non-action and can only represent the absence of an effect.

But largely, it is obvious now that the difference in our positions is semantic.


And this non-action intensifies the weight of the ones taking action. A small, and vocal minority, can cause an effect that the non-voters may or may not philosophically agree with.


Thanks for the reasonable and intelligent discussion!


Thank you, I appreciate the compliment.



posted on Nov, 10 2014 @ 06:54 AM
link   
a reply to: AugustusMasonicus


Quote the specific comment you'd like explained, and I will do so.

We just established in our last interchange that neither of us is certain of the actual composition of the non-voting ... e.g. what percentage cannot vote, could vote but don't, couldn't get IDs or proper papers to vote, etc. That's the evidence that is lacking in the discussion. At this point, not a specific charge levelled at you, merely at the conversation.

Other than that, best,



posted on Nov, 10 2014 @ 07:06 AM
link   
a reply to: Gryphon66

Fair enough.

I just took a bit of umbrage with being cast in the role of 'election spinner', I am not a partisan supporter of either side.



posted on Nov, 10 2014 @ 07:31 AM
link   

originally posted by: AugustusMasonicus
a reply to: Gryphon66

Fair enough.

I just took a bit of umbrage with being cast in the role of 'election spinner', I am not a partisan supporter of either side.



Truth to tell, I so seldomly find a logical and reasonable debate partner here, I may have approached our discussion with less than a positive attitude.

Your logic was clear and your language precise. A welcome departure from the average. Best,



posted on Nov, 10 2014 @ 06:33 PM
link   
a reply to: nwtrucker

I dont blame voters one bit for what happened last week. People are angry with the apathy and the huge disconnect between our elected officials and the average person. But, does anyone really think in their heart of hearts that the republican party is going to improve the country one iota for anyone other than the rich and corporations? And I am not saying this out of love for the dems, because they are exactly the same. I am willing to bet that we can come back on here at the onset of the next midterm, and not one thing will have gotten better, in fact it will probably get worse. The reason things have been bad, are bad and will get worse, is because the average American has NO representation in the current govt as it stands. If you are just an average working class, paycheck to paycheck citizen, you don't exist to either party. I hope I am wrong, I hope in 4 years we will have better jobs and a better economy and a better education system, but I seriously doubt it.
edit on 10-11-2014 by openminded2011 because: (no reason given)



posted on Nov, 10 2014 @ 07:26 PM
link   
a reply to: openminded2011

I don't blame the approximately 16%* of registered voters that voted Republican last week, either.

I think they voted their conscience, as did the 14.5%*of registered voters that voted non-Republican last week.

Additionally, I think if we can't get a handle on the actual facts of our lives as opposed to the BS we are fed in the media 24/7, there is little hope for us aside from slavery to a corporate oligarchy that now owns American politics, lock-stock-and-barrel.

~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~

*Percentages based on the following calculations: 23,470,841 votes for Republican candidates, 21,242,788 for non-Republican candidates (data from Senate finals at Politico), compared with the 146,311,000 (rounded figure) number of registered American voters.


edit on 20Mon, 10 Nov 2014 20:02:54 -060014p0820141166 by Gryphon66 because: Added link to evidence



posted on Nov, 10 2014 @ 08:43 PM
link   

originally posted by: Gryphon66
1. Nullification is a unsubstantiated, unconstitutional theory. It does not exist outside the minds of States Rights extremists.

2. As the REDMAP effort to gerrymander districts and capture State legislatures has been gaining ground for four years now, there is little surprise that the Republicans picked up seats in a Midterm year.

3. Regardless of these facts, I am excited to see what the Republicans will do. I'm looking forward to the Impeachment sideshow, both Chambers creating the permanent Joint Committee on Benghazi so that our grandchildren can also know what it's like to investigate Benghazi, the Federal Marriage Protection Act, the USA Belongs to Jesus Act, the We Stand Ready Compulsory Gun Carry Act (because the Constitution, ya know, doesn't SAY you don't have to carry a weapon) etc.






As you stated the states have no rights so I hope the federal government enacts marshal law throughout the US and does away with habeas corpus and the posse comitias so that federal troop can have control over every aspect of the states. Military in the streets an all that goes with federalism. Maybe the whole US will end up like the south did under reconstruction wouldn’t that be great!



posted on Nov, 10 2014 @ 10:58 PM
link   
a reply to: openminded2011

I haven't completely given up hope. Not quite, not yet.

I'm reminded of the time of the cold war. There was no out. Someone was going to screw up. An accident, a madman, a computer error,(which almost happened)...

Somehow, some way, be it luck or divine intervention we survived and for a while flourished.

I feel much like I did in those days.

Perhaps we get lucky again.



posted on Nov, 13 2014 @ 11:49 PM
link   

originally posted by: nwtrucker
a reply to: Skadi_the_Evil_Elf


But honestly, The U.S. version of Socialism is far more intrusive than any European equivalent.

The European version evolved over time.


Untrue on both accounts. In Europe, government reach is way more intrusive and all encompassing. And the European style hardly "evolved" over time. Social-democracies were pretty much enacted after World War 2, and there was nothing gradual about it.


The U.S. version is being rammed down our throats by a Federal gov't that 'knows' we need to be ruled over whether we like it or not.


Ehhh...what? Rammed down our throats? Really? Where? How? I have heard this all the time from people, yet they can never give me a good example. Where is this socialism being rammed down our throats? So far, the only thing that people are trying to ram down my throat politically is religion and their stone age morality.


None of Obama and Co.'s efforts where ever mandated beyond 'change'. The Affordable Care Act, Immigration issues, on and on.

You are now paying the price for that arrogance.

Fight Obama? YES. That's the mandate....Deal with it.



If fighting Obama is their only mandate then they have pretty much lost the plot completely. When I elect someone for office, I do so because I expect them to do their damned job, which is NOT petty political infighting, but actually working to find solutions and better ways of doing things.

Electing Republicans to fight Obama is as big a fail as when the Democrats picked John Kerry on the basis of "He wasn't Bush". If that's all the right has to offer, they have failed, and will become irrelevant.



posted on Nov, 14 2014 @ 08:47 PM
link   
a reply to: Skadi_the_Evil_Elf

You want a good example?

The Affordable Care Act. It was never a campaign issue. The people did not vote for it. The architect of Obamacare has just admitted deceiving the public as they were too stupid...yes he actually said that...Google it. If that isn't ramming down our throats there's bo suvh thing..LOL

Now it's your turn. Europe "Social Democracies...nothing gradual about it". Oh, really? You claim then the current level of "socialism" was achieved right after WWII?

No evolving whatsoever? Gee.

Obviously, you vote for a person to do his job. Impressive.

Obama's list of acts, not voted on, extant laws, including the Constitution violated. The list is long. (I don't believe Obama is a Socialist.)

Add in the Republicans Party, as a whole never really articulated an agenda of any kind.

If the mid-term was a vote for co-operation, for bipartisanship the democrats would have been voted in.

Simple really.



posted on Nov, 14 2014 @ 09:10 PM
link   
a reply to: nwtrucker

The ACA is NOT even close to socialism. I agree the ACA is an abomination of legislation, but for very different reasons. The ACA is little more than a crony capitalist insurance racket. The ACA forces one to give money to a private corporation (The Health Insurance company) for a product that person might not want, nor really afford. The ACA is basically a massive extortion racket for the health insurance companies and the medical industrial complex in general. The ACA is not even in the same ballpark as a government run, single taxpayer system like the NHS in the UK. The ACA is basically forcing people to engage in private commerce with private companies who are part of the international financial racket. If it was socialism, the private companies would not even be in the picture. In the UK, the government implemented the NHS pretty quickly, and seized possession of a number of formerly private hospitals, though not all, to be part of the NHS. That is actually socialism.

The ACA does not address the real health care in America: the exorbitant, extortionist cost of medical care in this country.



posted on Nov, 14 2014 @ 10:48 PM
link   
A British Columbia man's open letter to American voters is apparently helping soothe the pain of some Democrats after last week's midterm elections.

Victoria's Richard Brunt penned the note on Nov. 7, just days after Republicans captured a majority in the Senate in what was seen as a repudiation of the administration of U.S. President Barack Obama. The victory means the GOP will have full control of Congress while Obama finishes out his term.

Brunt's message — which has since gone viral — was basically: what were you thinking?

The letter, titled "You Americans have no idea just how good you have it with Obama," was published in The Detroit Free Press last Friday.




Being Canadian I have to agree with Richard's pov on this. From up here you Americans look like fools! Please send him our way!



posted on Nov, 15 2014 @ 02:49 AM
link   
a reply to: Skadi_the_Evil_Elf

Actually, you are right that the A.C.A. is not "Socialism", per say.

I modify your thoughts on it only to the extent that both Obama and Biden-among others-have stated they preferred a state social medical system. I've always had the suspicion that Obama would have had no problem with the A.C.A. crashing and burning so that he could 'rescue' it with a single payer system.

I guess I was more venting calling it 'socialism' being rammed down our throats when in reality it seems more like a centralization of power, not just to D.C. but to the Presidency itself.

I actually don't know how to describe/categorize Obama other than the above. That is to say. A massive federalization of power and within that federalization a further centralization to the Presidency which approaches the area code of dictatorship. Irrespective of agreeing or not with his what he does, it's the fact of how he's doing it!



posted on Nov, 15 2014 @ 03:14 AM
link   
a reply to: Skadi_the_Evil_Elf

Sorry, my hard drive is screwed..

Cont'd.

Therefore, I cannot speak for all voters, having said that, stopping Obama is the singularly most important first step in any real and lasting recovery. IMO.

It is my mandate. There really is no other option to preserving the Founding Father's vision.

As far as health care goes, it belongs in a State by State choice, not enforced by a Federal gov't in clear violation of the 10th.



posted on Nov, 15 2014 @ 03:41 AM
link   
a reply to: brice

I assure you, you don't speak for all Canadians.

Having said that, ignoring the innate anti-Americanism, off the top, I'd say that person's biggest flaw, as well as yours, is buying into those media reports. THEY ARE CONTROLLED. As are yours.

Jobs...LOL.. and dropping oil prices and the resulting surge in the U.S. dollar are occurring despite Obama. The XL Pipeline is just an example of that. His Climate Change agenda and just completed agreement with China is further evidence of his overall priorities.

93 million Americans are out of work. Approx. 3 times Canada's population. The 6% is those actively searching for work, ie on unemployment and REGISTERED as such.

The 'soaring' stock market is not due to a dynamic economy but to a devalued purchasing power of the dollar. There's your real inflation indication. Keep printing money and the money becomes less valuable. Hence it takes more money to buy the same stocks.

The lack of 'inflation' in the economy overall is due to stagflation...even that is false. Food prices are soaring etc. those inflations are temporarily hidden by the drop in fuel prices.

Outside the oil industry's job creation, the rest of the economy is producing service industry jobs with part time employment being the order of the day. (Less than 30 hours per week, thanks to the A.C.A.). Average American family income is dropping. Period.

Harper on the other hand has produced a balanced federal budget and a surplus!! If you want out from under the central banks control, one must reduce their leverage by reducing/eliminating your debt!!

Tell you what, we'll give you Obama and you give us Harper in exchange and we'll both be happy....



posted on Nov, 15 2014 @ 04:44 AM
link   
Ah yes, the "91-92-93 million out of work" talking point ...



The Facts

The Bureau of Labor Statistics does show that there are nearly 92 million Americans out of the workforce. But dig into the numbers and it is clear that it’s silly to say all of these people are “on the sidelines” and need action from the president and the Congress.

This BLS document shows that the civilian noninstitutional population—essentially, people over the age of 16–is nearly 247 million. The civil labor force is 155 million, with a participation rate of 62.8 percent. So that leaves nearly 92 million “not in the labor force.” What does that mean?

Essentially, it means everyone above the age of 16 who is not working. The BLS breaks it down even further, and it quickly becomes clear that the vast majority of these people are retired or simply are not interested in working, such as stay-at-home parents.


Washington Post - "Are there 91 million Americans 'on the sidelines' looking for work?"


edit on 4Sat, 15 Nov 2014 04:50:34 -060014p0420141166 by Gryphon66 because: Spellin



posted on Nov, 15 2014 @ 04:50 AM
link   
Oh, and the "printing money" talking point ...



The lesson here is that despite what is broadly presumed by economists and the punditry, the Fed can’t force money into the economy, nor can it increase “money supply.” Money supply is demand determined, and with the economy still relatively weak, there’s very little demand for the dollar credit that’s been expanded by Fed purchases of bank assets.

What about the supposed “money printing” by the Fed? There’s once again no such thing occurring. Instead, the Fed is able to engage in its program of quantitative easing thanks to its 25 basis point payments for bank reserves. With the funds borrowed from banks, the Fed has the means to purchase all manner of Treasuries and mortgage bonds.


Forbes Magazine - The Fed is not printing money it's doing something much worse



posted on Nov, 15 2014 @ 05:01 AM
link   
Not to mention the "more money causes inflation" mistake .. .



It is conventional wisdom that printing more money causes inflation. This is why we are seeing so many warnings today of how Quantitative Easing I and II and the federal government’s deficit are about to lead to skyrocketing prices. The only problem is, it’s not true. That’s not how inflation works. Hence, this is yet another of the false alarms being raised (along with the need to balance the budget) that is preventing us from doing what we need to do to recover from the worse recession since the Great Depression.


Forbes Magazine - Money Growth does not cause inflation


So folks, essentially, when you see Republican talking points like these being tossed casually into a conversation, ask yourself, "wait, are these things true?"

You may notice that the folks who use these and other "catch phrases" or talking points ... you know like "job creators" as another way of saying "the rich and powerful" ... just use whole batches of them, and if you start to actually take them apart (as do the economists and specialists listed in the last few quotes ... )

They really don't mean anything.



posted on Nov, 15 2014 @ 09:45 AM
link   

originally posted by: nwtrucker
a reply to: Skadi_the_Evil_Elf

Sorry, my hard drive is screwed..

Cont'd.

Therefore, I cannot speak for all voters, having said that, stopping Obama is the singularly most important first step in any real and lasting recovery. IMO.

It is my mandate. There really is no other option to preserving the Founding Father's vision.

As far as health care goes, it belongs in a State by State choice, not enforced by a Federal gov't in clear violation of the 10th.



I think the only really socialist thing I have seen Obama pull was buying out GM, which angered me. Personally the American big three car companies should have been left to their own devices and allowed to crash and burn. The collapse of the car companies would not have had as big an impact as people seem to think, seeing how they have shipped much of their production overseas. After what they did to Detroit and thousands of American workers, those companies deserved to crumble so that newer, more vibrant car companies with newer, brighter ideas could take over.

I don't care much for Obama, but neither do I believe he is dooming our country any more than his predecessors. He is another stooge towing the same party line every president before him towed, not making any waves to the establishment, serving pretty much the same corporate and bankster masters and refusing to break the harmful, parasitic alliances that continue to bog down our foreign policy. He is another boot licking crony capitalist working for the interests of The Man, just like Bush Jr, Clinton, Bush Sr, and Regan before him. He is not a radical or revolutionary Marxist trying to end capitalism, he is simply trying to re-route the capitalist river of revenue towards HIS friends. Same game EVERONE in D.C. has been playing, and will continue to play so long as we keep following this left/right single party circus.

If anything, I believe Dubya Bush ruined this country way more than Obama ever could by starting this clueless War on terror and invading Iraq and removing Saddam Hussein, who at that time, was the biggest Arab stabilizing force in the Middlle East. The War on Terror and the Patriot Act, both Neo-Con brainchildren, basically shredded the constitution. The amount of spending and tax breaks during the Bush years created the basis for the current debt crisis. Obama hasn't shredded the constitution, he is just keeping it shredded. Instead of working to revoke the Patriot Act (a piece of legislation as damaging as the ACA), he just renews it and keeps enforcing it. The NSA debacle was hardly shocking, since the NSA and other agencies have been given free reign to rifle through our private lives since 9/11. Obama didn't start NSA spying, he just renewed it's spying privileges through his administration. During the Obama administration, we see an increase in police brutality nationwide and an increase in police militarization. Yet other than a couple of media circuses surrounding a couple high profile cases, Obama's Justice department has done squat to even mention the issue. You would think a BLACK president would be sicking the DOJ hounds on the issue. But the response has been laughable, and the cops keep getting worse, unopposed. Just goes to show you, Obama doesn't care about poor black people any more than Bush cared about poor white people. Instead of trying to get the rising deficit from Bush's military spending and tax breaks, he almost doubles it. I support his increase in welfare and government assistance programs during the financial and housing crisis, but he should have funded it by making cuts elsewhere and getting rid of a lot of tax breaks. A few logjams might have even been removed from some areas of the economy as an added benefit.

Instead of correcting or trying to minimize mistakes from previous presidencies, he keeps those and adds a couple of his own. I honestly have no issue with people who dislike or oppose Obama. I take issue, however, when the arguments are purely partisan politics based, are irrational, outrageous, or just plain BS. There is much to slam Obama about, but being a blood drinking, baby eating, grandma raping, gay Nazi Muslim Closet Commie Masonic High Priest of Satan he is not. He is more correctly observed along the lines of Inept Confused Mathematically Challenged Boot Licking Butt Kissing Line Towing Toady for the Interests of the Authoritarian Financial, Military, and Corporate Elites.




top topics



 
8
<< 7  8  9    11 >>

log in

join