It looks like you're using an Ad Blocker.
Please white-list or disable AboveTopSecret.com in your ad-blocking tool.
Some features of ATS will be disabled while you continue to use an ad-blocker.
originally posted by: BatheInTheFountain
a reply to: links234
I'm not telling Democrats to give up and not vote. I'm saying that a DEMOCRAT, right now, no matter what the flavor or policy, will get nowhere with the current majority.
My simple question is, for the good of the nation, is ONE lone Democrat in a field where every major political legislative and State branch is Republican, good for business? Just based on the numbers alone.
Is America ready for 4 MORE years of gridlock and battles? Because if people think it's bad now, try a Bernie or Hillary at the helm. Veto veto veto veto, EO...EO...EO...down the line
originally posted by: derfreebie
a reply to: links234
I'd respectfully refute only one of your statements, being that
the major urban areas are Democratic strongholds-- surrounded
most times with a red sea. Illinois and Texas are a couple of
examples that spring up, like Chicago/Cook Co. and Austin
respectively. The result I concede is the state's still blue.
Only issue I have is at the mid-terms, most of the blue voters
don't bother showing up for some reason... this next general
election could elicit a mighty big turnout all around.
and dynastic career bloodlines
originally posted by: Puppylove
I don't care if Bernie can't get any thing passed. Just him getting in without a corporate bribe and knowing he works for us is good enough for me. Get Bernie in and then the floodgates open and we can start replacing congress with people that work for us as well.
I'd rather a lame duck that's on our payroll than someone who's passing all the legislation desired by big business to rape the working class.
I honestly don't know the numbers required for overrides, plus it's a Bill by Bill basis isn't it?
And why would we even want the gridlock from constant Veto overrides in the first place? What a mess that would be.