23 States now have complete Republican control

a reply to: Xtrozero

Especially when a good part of the nation's job growth is directly attributable to the oil industry.

The remaining jobs? Part time, due to Obamacare mandates and service industry at low wages.

A great job!! Totally endorsed by the electorate.

a reply to: AugustusMasonicus

Did I quote you?

Did I say any variation on "since you said this ..."?

No. I did not.

I demonstrated that the majority of the non-voters are not registered to vote, so they were not merely choosing not to vote on election day. There are a multitude of reasons why they're not registered, and we have none of that data under discussion here.

If you wish to provide evidence on describing the distributions within the non-voting population of those who can't vote, those who aren't authorized to vote, etc. then we have a basis for actual discussion.

You are stating that no intent can be be inferred from non-votes. I agree. Nothing from nothing.

You are disputing yourself when you say a non-vote, a non-action, counts for something, as I have shown.

originally posted by: Gryphon66

Did I quote you?

Did I say any variation on "since you said this ..."?

No. I did not.

Those were your words in a reply to me. If you were not referring to me trying to 'spin the election' to whom were you referring?

I demonstrated that the majority of the non-voters are not registered to vote, so they were not merely choosing not to vote on election day. There are a multitude of reasons why they're not registered, and we have none of that data under discussion here.

I would wager that the majority of un-registered voters are not from some nefarious reasons by either party. Either way, their non-vote due to failing to register is analogous to a registered voter who does not vote.

If you wish to provide evidence on describing the distributions within the non-voting population of those who can't vote, those who aren't authorized to vote, etc. then we have a basis for actual discussion.

I would not even know where to begin to look for data that would describe the number of people unable to vote.

You are stating that no intent can be be inferred from non-votes. I agree. Nothing from nothing.

No, we cannot know their intent. Only the result from their action, or inaction if you prefer.

You are disputing yourself when you say a non-vote, a non-action, counts for something, as I have shown.

It indeed counts as it lowers the threshold required for a candidate to win or a proposition to pass depending on the demographics of the non-voter(s).

originally posted by: Grumble
I am sure that those 23 states have the lowest educational attainment, the highest teen pregnancy, the highest rates of domestic abuse, etc. It's the half of the country that are in effect more like a third world country. Now they can look forward to lower wages, less health care, and more corruption.

But you sure did teach that negro a lesson, didn't you Cletus?

I believe that has to do with the demographics of the particular states more than anything. One size does not fit all. You cannot compare, for instance, a New Hampshire to a Mississippi or a Minnesota to an Alabama. They have a whole different set of issues to deal with when it comes to educational attainment, teen pregnancies, domestic violence, etc.

a reply to: AugustusMasonicus

Did I say "Augustus, you're just spinning the election" or not?

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.

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.

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

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.

Thanks for the reasonable and intelligent discussion!

a reply to: olaru12

In my state - Cory Gardner ran on the promise that he was from the party of cooperation and compromise

Like the past 6 years never happened

I honestly am not in the mood for any more partisan squabbling - but this scorched earth approach to winning their place in sun has honestly left me with very little respect for their party. I may have had my disagreements with them in the past - but I could always at least muster some respect

They're going to have to work very hard to win it back

a reply to: signalfire

Because it's better than HARRY REID'S socialist face.

a reply to: ThirdEyeofHorus

Can you please state what exactly, in explicit detail makes Harry Reid a Socialist?

originally posted by: Gryphon66
I wonder if anyone who is cheerleading for the Red Congress and the Red Wave Legislatures to create all this new legislation is aware that until the GOP took control again they were wailing and gnashing teeth over "big government interference."

I guess Republicans and their supporters only dislike government when they're not in charge.

Well, it will sure be amusing to watch the President exercise his mighty pen and phone while he is vetoing bill after bill after bill after bill after bill. I mean we all know how valiantly he has worked to find common ground with the GOP.

originally posted by: Kali74
a reply to: ThirdEyeofHorus

Can you please state what exactly, in explicit detail makes Harry Reid a Socialist?

Perhaps the better question is:

What Doesn't?

a reply to: xuenchen

Well now you've stepped in it too. Let's see it, I'm calling both of you out... you both insist that I an actual Socialist don't know what Socialist means. So you are accusing Harry Reid, as if he was or as if it were a bad/criminal/evil thing to be, now cough it up... what makes Harry Reid a Socialist?

originally posted by: Kali74
a reply to: ThirdEyeofHorus

Can you please state what exactly, in explicit detail makes Harry Reid a Socialist?

Would you be willing to admit that single payer health care would be socialist?

conservatives about health care policy, I’m often asked the question: “Do you think that Obamacare is secretly a step toward single-payer health care?” I always explain that, while progressives may want single-payer, I don’t think that Obamacare is deliberately designed to bring about that outcome. Well, yesterday on PBS’ Nevada Week In Review, Senate Majority Leader Harry Reid (D., Nev.) was asked whether his goal was to move Obamacare to a single-payer system. His answer? “Yes, yes. Absolutely, yes.”
In one sense, this isn’t shocking. Reid and many other Democrats, including President Obama, have often stated that their ideal health-care system is one in which the government abolishes the private insurance market. Video of the PBS discussion isn’t yet online, but here’s how Karoun Demirjian of the Las Vegas Sun described it:


“Reid said he thinks the country has to “work our way past” insurance-based health care during a Friday night appearance on Vegas PBS’ program “Nevada Week in Review.”

“What we’ve done with Obamacare is have a step in the right direction, but we’re far from having something that’s going to work forever,” Reid said.

www.forbes.com...

And then there's the typical class warfare thing, which Reid and other Democrats have been pushing hard especially the last 6 years. We know that Karl Marx was all about class warfare, as it's part of the Communist Manifest, and Socialism is communism lite.

Instead of passing a budget, Senate Majority Leader Harry Reid introduced a "Sense of the Senate" resolution saying that those who make more than $1 million per year should "make a more meaningful contribution to the deficit-reduction effort." In other words, they should pay more in taxes than they already do, thereby ensuring higher unemployment and a further erosion of the private sector economy.

Reid's argument has nothing to do with economics or sound fiscal policy, but has everything to do with the socialist idea of wealth redistribution and class warfare. His main argument, according to The Hill, is that rich people can "afford it."
The resolution claims that four-fifths of the income gains over the last quarter-century have accrued to the top 1 percent of earners, while the median family income has declined.

Obviously, it has not dawned on Reid that his policies are to blame for dwindling family incomes. Worse yet, Reid really doesn't want a solution - he wants an issue to demagogue.

www.examiner.com...

a reply to: ThirdEyeofHorus

No, I won't... it would be State health care. Is that it? Is that the only thing that defines Reid as a Socialist?

Really?

a reply to: Kali74

Can I Just roll my eyes then, since you refuse to see what's obvious and right in front of you.

Why do you keep trying to insist that socialism is not REALLY socialism but a figment of capitalist's imaginations?
I don't even know why you are arguing this.

In this candid interview, Senator Harry Reid stated his wish that a female Democrat would replace him in the Senate as well as replace Obama in the White House in 2016. Senator Reid, sick of the Tea Party influence in the Senate, also stated his wish of retiring overseas to place with saner liberal policies. He praised Sweden and Cuba as great examples of countries with superior health and welfare systems.
Harry Reid stated;

“[Cuba‘s] a poor country, but they have a lower child mortality rate than ours. Their life expectancy is now greater than ours. It’s interesting — their public health system is quite remarkable.”

Sen. Reid lauded Cuba’s public health plan, touting the socialist state’s reported low infection rate in hospitals. The country has performed admirably in decreasing the numbers of smokers via public health campaigns, he said.

In the interview Reid also praised Sweden’s combination of high living standards, few social problems, and high level of income equality.

dailyleak.org...


I'm guessing you don't recognize Cuba as a socialist state, and the Cuban health system as a socialist one. I'm also guessing you don't understand that the rhetoric about income inequality is typical Marxist class warfare.

a reply to: Kali74

Labeling Reid a 'socialist' I believe isn't particularly accurate. He has some socialist views,the above quote covers that one, but, these guys connected to Obama seem to be more power grabbers in general than lock step socialists.

Pelosi fits that definition more than Reid from what I can see.

Does Biden fall into a socialist? Not really. Some, yes.

Reid has cleaned up financially with deals in Nevada. What does one label Holder?

All of these guys seem to defy any lockstep label, including "democrats". What does one label Obama for that matter?

That whole bunch is a conundrum....

a reply to: ThirdEyeofHorus

Figment? Nah. Delusion? Yep. Can't you just answer the question? Is his stance on single payer health care the only thing that defines him as a Socialist or not? I'm guessing you googled him and found squat so you're now going to pout and "roll your eyes".

a reply to: nwtrucker

Indeed they do defy single label, most people do. The closest elected federal official we have to an actual Socialist is Bernie Sanders. And he's not a 'pure' Socialist but a Democratic Socialist.

a reply to: ThirdEyeofHorus

Furthermore, the only way for health care to actually be Socialist is if we did away with health insurance entirely (which we can't do because it is a huge part of our economy) and doctors, nurses, aides... what have you, were entirely in charge of what their personal services cost (which they can't do because no one will touch regulating the medical supply industry with a ten foot pole). Single payer health care is the most fiscally responsible as well as compassionate thing we can do at the moment until we figure out how bring the cost of health care supplies and do away with insurance without costing hundreds of thousands of people an income.

a reply to: Kali74

I like your view on the medical issue. it's completely different from any other. No matter what system one has, the healthy will pay for the sick. There's no getting around that short of letting the sick die...

The biggest beef I have with the single payer system is the power grabbers in charge laying arbitraries and bureaucracies that add to the delays and overall cost of that service.

Bottom line, is it should be decided on a state level. Each if they wish it or not. NOT imposed by a federal power grab.

Just saying.....

originally posted by: Kali74
a reply to: ThirdEyeofHorus

Can you please state what exactly, in explicit detail makes Harry Reid a Socialist?

I guess that's a no. Exactly as expected.
Goodnight.