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.

 

What if Dems win back the Congress and WH?

page: 2
0
<< 1   >>

log in

join
share:

posted on Sep, 4 2006 @ 10:28 PM
link   
They are not allowed to vote their conscience. They must toe the party line, else they get voted out. Witness Joe Lieberman.



MMP

posted on Sep, 4 2006 @ 10:52 PM
link   
I am kind of shocked that only 3 people said we'd get the same thing packaged differently. I figured within the ATS community more people would share this viewpoint.

The bottom line is that it doesn't matter. Left and right are two sides of the same coin and since the coin is made out of crap that's what we'll get either way. We're merely changing the middle management team's face while keeping the same old ideas.

I think the real question is what if people who actually care and believe in this country took over our government?

Scary idea isn't it?



posted on Sep, 5 2006 @ 05:14 PM
link   
I personally do not see much of a difference between the two parties.

After all, both republicans and democrats voted for various controversial issues, such as the patriot act. Members of both parties voted for the use of force in Iraq, and are present in important committees. Vilifying everything the government does as work of the evil republican party is something of amusement.

Or we can blame Bush, which ironically, needs almost every action approved by congress (wherein democrats have a vote, and could always filibuster). Too much spending? Well, congress approves all the budgets. Too much war? Well, the president can only send armed forces to anywhere for a limited time without congress' approval.

Having Bush push an amendment against homosexual marriages isn't too far off of Clinton's signing of the defense of marriage act. Only one of those actions actually caused any change in law, but I digress. Along these divisive issues are things such as minimum wage, but in the end it is the same. So we give the poorest a raise of $10/h (or some other figure), which causes the employers to pay them more. The employers get strained, so to give the same profitability, they make their goods more expensive. When goods are more expensive, the cost of living increases. We get to the same exact point - it's a vicious cycle.

I have yet to see any major party come to grips with each other in such a way where any of our problems will be solved. Or if they do come up with a solution, it is for the short term. Social security? Both parties agree that it will fail sometime in the future. Why would they solve anything for the long term when it would be out of the collective memory of the voter? I suppose that is a criticism of democracy in general. Immigration? Bush (a republican) wants relatively open borders and a guest worker program, and there are a lot of democrats that agree with him.

It's my opinion that if you want a change in the system, you will need to vote outside the system.



posted on Sep, 7 2006 @ 03:26 PM
link   
If anyone actually thinks the Democrats are a "liberal" party you are sorely mistaken. Democrats are basically Bush-lite.

For people who keep whining about Lieberman and democratic loyalties blah blah.... Lieberman is middle of the road. End of story! He's basically an independant who is going nowhere and should hang up his cleats NOW.

What I don't understand is why we attacked Iraq?? A good friend of mine is trying to convince me that it's because Saddam was trying to break the Petro-dollar cycle.

Anyways..... to answer the thread.....
A dem controlled congress and WH would be better because dems tend to do a better job of going to the root of a problem. I.E.>> If you say illegal immigration is the problem.... republicans will put more troops on the border and build more fences. That's not attacking the real problem though! Those people don't come here to go river rafting in the grand canyon. They come for jobs!!!
Go to the damn employer and make them be responsible for who they hire. Employers are against this because illegals will work for CHEAP and that is all they care about. MONEY talks and everything else walks. America is simply a victim of it's own design.

I love my country and feel fortunately to have been born here, but I have to call it like I see it.



posted on Sep, 7 2006 @ 04:28 PM
link   

Originally posted by Scramjet76
For people who keep whining about Lieberman and democratic loyalties blah blah.... Lieberman is middle of the road. End of story! He's basically an independant who is going nowhere and should hang up his cleats NOW.

He may go nowhere in this election, but he's already been far and above most politicians. And I don't blame him for not wanting to associate himself with the likes of Howard Dean, Teddy Kennedy, John Kerry, and Dennis Kucinich.


Anyways..... to answer the thread.....
A dem controlled congress and WH would be better because dems tend to do a better job of going to the root of a problem. I.E.>> If you say illegal immigration is the problem.... republicans will put more troops on the border and build more fences.

...and Democrats would solve the problem by giving them all amnesty. Poof! No more problem!:shk:



posted on Sep, 9 2006 @ 12:53 PM
link   
Not a great deal of differance...only instead of the Dems being obstructionists, it would be the Reps. Pardon me if I don't see a whole lot of difference between the two.

Barring some sort of GOP meltdown come November, any majority the Dems have will be miniscuel, tiny, not worth mentioning. We'd get to see Mr. Kennedy more often, not what I would consider an improvement...
.

So more of the same, just the names would change...



posted on Sep, 9 2006 @ 01:47 PM
link   

Originally posted by seagull
Not a great deal of differance...only instead of the Dems being obstructionists, it would be the Reps.

I agree that there is not much difference between the two parties. But the major changes would be othrwise; Rangel would be chair of the Ways and Means, Pelosi would be Speaker, etc. You'd see major shifts away from funding the Iraq war.

Another major change would be the flood of investigations and attempts of impeachment of Bush.



posted on Sep, 9 2006 @ 03:44 PM
link   
Yes, all that is very true, I can't argue that, because I read it the same way. Unless november completely goes awry for the GOP I can't see anything worse than a small loss in either house. Worse case they lose control, but retain enough seats to block, as the democrats do now.

Good ole Charlie Rangel, it would be so boring without him around
. You know I actually kinda like the guy.



new topics

top topics



 
0
<< 1   >>

log in

join