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.

 

So which party are you voting for in November?

page: 4
7
<< 1  2  3    5  6 >>

log in

join
share:

posted on Jul, 22 2010 @ 04:17 PM
link   
No party-line for me. I'm voting against incumbents. This election I'm choosing the devil I don't know.




posted on Jul, 22 2010 @ 04:22 PM
link   
reply to post by David9176
 


I'll probably end up voting for the lesser of all the evils at the time of the elections. They are all FUBAR imo though.



posted on Jul, 22 2010 @ 04:29 PM
link   

Originally posted by maybereal11
The Dems took control "majority" in congress in January 2007 after not having control for the prior 12....sworn in Jan 4th 07.

That puts my math at 3 and half years...as opposed to "4 years at the least!"


They were elected in 2006, it is now 2010. Did I calculate it exactly down to the day? No. If you want to be completely technical about it, they've been in control for 3 years, 6 months, and 18 days. I didn't realize rounding up to the nearest year would completely invalidate my entire post.


In the Senate the Dems took only a 51 to 49 seat lead allowing the GOP to effectively fillibuster all legislation, so "Control"??...not so much.


Speaking of filibusters, since you kindly provided stats for republicans but not democrats, if you look at the chart here you'll see that with the exception of the 110th session the number of cloture motions filed are roughly the same regardless of which party was in the majority. (For those who don't know, not necessarily you maybereal, cloture motions are only filed to get past a filibuster.)

What that chart doesn't show is that nowadays, they don't stand on the floor and talk for hours when they filibuster. Instead they threaten it and the majority either files a motion for cloture or moves on to something else until they can get cloture. If you want to talk about time being wasted while senators blather on about nothing though, here are some democrats who did just that:


Source

At 9:51 on the morning of June 10, 1964, Senator Robert C. Byrd completed an address that he had begun 14 hours and 13 minutes earlier. The subject was the pending Civil Rights Act of 1964, a measure that occupied the Senate for 57 working days, including six Saturdays.



Source

Reid himself held the floor for nearly nine straight hours in 2003, without so much as a bathroom break, to protest the majority’s insistence on “wasting” 30 continuous hours of debate over four judges Democrats had refused to confirm. He spoke for hours on the bill itself before commencing to read newspaper clippings and excerpts from his book “Searchlight: The Camp That Didn’t Fail,” as well as offering his musings on an array of subjects that included cactuses, rabbits, rocks and the behavior of buffaloes on a trip he took to Old Faithful.


There are more, but I won't waste space posting them. My point is that both sides filibuster when they're the minority. Neither side is innocent of that. To blame one and give the other a pass is just ridiculous. Complain about the Republicans all you want, heaven knows I do all the time. But when talking about filibusters, at least have the decency to complain about both sides doing it rather than just the side you don't like.

EDIT: fixed link

[edit on 22-7-2010 by Jenna]



posted on Jul, 22 2010 @ 04:44 PM
link   
reply to post by Solasis
 


voting for the 'lesser evil' is what got us into the current mess we are. the folks manipulating elections figured that trick out and so started offering us (from the democratic republican party) a seemingly tolerable puppet, and an unacceptable puppet. I suspect they will also this time around, if they aren't doing so already, have 3rd party puppet set up to throw an election or absorb most of the dissatisfied vote, then make themselves incapable of winning.



posted on Jul, 22 2010 @ 04:55 PM
link   
I'M voting to kick them ALL OUT. Theives and a bunch of criminals hiding under what they call laws. We need to start over with a new crew to get rid of old and new junk laws, throw them all out.



posted on Jul, 22 2010 @ 05:44 PM
link   

Originally posted by whaaa
reply to post by David9176
 


During our local 4th of July parade this year the Campaigning Democrats riding in the back of pickups were throwing candy to the kids. The Republicans riding on the back of Mercedes convertibles were handing out bumper stickers.

Whats that tell you?



[edit on 21-7-2010 by whaaa]


That the Republicans are going to win.

Let me know when they're handing out Mercedes convertibles.



posted on Jul, 22 2010 @ 05:47 PM
link   

Originally posted by Jenna

Originally posted by maybereal11
The Dems took control "majority" in congress in January 2007 after not having control for the prior 12....sworn in Jan 4th 07.


Speaking of filibusters, since you kindly provided stats for republicans but not democrats, if you look at the chart here you'll see that with the exception of the 110th session the number of cloture motions filed are roughly the same regardless of which party was in the majority.
[edit on 22-7-2010 by Jenna]


With the exception of 110th?? That is the session we are debating!!!

And the article and numbers you linked to show almost TWICE the number of Filibusters after the Dems took a majority than the prior session when the GOP had the Majority...

Not sure what the point is...you have just proved what I was saying and you don't even seem to realize it. Read the link you provided carefully perhaps.

Either way Jenna, your repeated rhetoric of "The Dems have had "control" of congress for at least four years" holds no water when compared to the reality of the nightly news and repeated fillibusters and holding up of appointments. It is unprecendented. The GOP has proudly stopped government from working and now is trying to blame the other party.

The Dems suck, but the GOP is going for some kind of Ef the country award.

[edit on 22-7-2010 by maybereal11]

[edit on 22-7-2010 by maybereal11]



posted on Jul, 22 2010 @ 05:55 PM
link   

Originally posted by maybereal11
With the exception of 110th?? That is the session we are debating!!!


Really? You mean at some point I'm unaware of this thread became about the 110th session of congress instead of which party people are voting for in November? Wow, that's news to me.


And the article and numbers you linked to show almost TWICE the number of Filibusters after the Dems took a majority than the prior session when the GOP had the Majority...


Only for the 110th session, the rest have been comparable between the parties as I already said in my last post.


Not sure what the point is...you have just proved what I was sayingand you don't even seem to realize it. Read the link you provided carefully perhaps.


I explained my point rather carefully in my last paragraph. Read it more carefully is the only suggestion I can offer you. What I proved was that both parties use filibusters not just the party you hate.


Either way Jenna, your repeated rhetoric of "The Dems have had "control" of congress for at least four years" holds no water when compared to the reality of the nightly news and repeated fillibusters and holding up of appointments. It is unprecendented. The GOP has proudly stopped government from working and now is trying to blame the other party.


Again, I didn't know rounding to the nearest year invalidated an entire post, and regardless I've already answered your accusation over it. Repeating yourself is just tiresome. What your post shows is that the democrats can do no wrong in your eyes so long as you can point fingers at the republicans. What I'm trying to explain to you, though my explanations are apparently falling on deaf ears, is that neither side is any better than the other not even when they're your precious democrats. Claiming otherwise does not make it so. Your bias is blatantly obvious, but feel free to continue tossing accusations at me. None of them will stick.

Now, can we get back on topic? Or are you going to insist on further derailing this thread?



Late Edit:

Something's been bothering me about the following from one of your earlier posts..


Originally posted by maybereal11
I used to think you were one of the more honest folks here regardless of political leanings, but here you have shown me that facts be damned you will simply bash away at any truth associated with a view not your own.


It's taken me two hours to figure out what it was, but then I looked at your registration date and had an epiphany. Sure enough, you registered while Bush was still in office and presumably were reading political threads here when you first registered. The threads you likely read were about Bush, since he was president and there were a lot of them back then, and I was quite vocal about my dislike for the man and pretty much all of his policies.

So long as I was voicing discontent for a republican, you liked my posts. Now that I'm voicing it about democrats, seeing as how I hate both parties equally, you don't like my posts anymore. It's all so clear to me now. Yet I'm the one accused of not being honest or truthful anymore.


[edit on 22-7-2010 by Jenna]



posted on Jul, 22 2010 @ 06:09 PM
link   
I don't vote for people who are in parties. I vote for individuals who want to be positive leaders for the good of the people they represent.

That's why I don't vote at all anymore.

Maybe I'll vote this year, we'll see if anyone fits the shoe.



posted on Jul, 22 2010 @ 06:17 PM
link   
I am voting for Satan, as long as he appears on Fox, wears a flag pin and has a southern accent, I am in!!!



posted on Jul, 22 2010 @ 06:19 PM
link   
Nobody with Any intelligence should vote by party affiliation.

There is nowhere with in our government that establishes political parties.

The two parties with power today,were at one time, before Lincoln the same party!

Lincoln was the first Republican President after the split.

And he did not belong to the Republican party when he won election!

So much IGNORANCE in our society today.

Find out what the person has done and what they believe and vote for the individual.

Not the party.



posted on Jul, 22 2010 @ 06:28 PM
link   
LETS GO ROGUE, vote for the guy, gal who is against all parties and profilleration of we the peoples money. GO ROGUE, i say.


[edit on 22-7-2010 by nite owl]

[edit on 22-7-2010 by nite owl]



posted on Jul, 22 2010 @ 06:33 PM
link   

Originally posted by nite owl
LETS GO ROUGE, vote for the guy, gal who is against all parties and profilleration of we the peoples money. GO ROUGE, i say.


You mean rogue. Well, unless you want us to all go red...



posted on Jul, 22 2010 @ 06:55 PM
link   
reply to post by David9176
 


One question for you? Off topic. What would happen if no one voted? Do the members already seated keep their jobs or what? Just curious, if anyone knows the answer to this?



posted on Jul, 22 2010 @ 07:33 PM
link   

Originally posted by dizziedame
I am voting republician and no incumbants.

I'd rather cut my own throat than to vote for a democrat.







I Agree . As much as I am disillusioned by the Present Republican Party , the Democratic Party has become nothing more than a Wave of Radical, Liberal, Socialist, Elitest who care more about welding Dictatorial Political Power than they do about Representing the common interests of the American People as a whole . Revolution is on the Horizon for this Country unless things Drastically Change for the Better in the not to Distant Future .



LONG LIVE THE REPUBLIC !



posted on Jul, 22 2010 @ 07:36 PM
link   
Screw the elections, I'm buying more guns and ammo.



posted on Jul, 22 2010 @ 07:46 PM
link   
Were I a citizen I would vote Libertarian, Constitution, or Green with the main point being to vote out whoever is in office (whether Democrat or Republican) and to not vote in a Democrat or a Republicans.

If Ron Paul's Campaign for Liberty and related groups became a political party of their own, then I would gladly vote for them.



posted on Jul, 22 2010 @ 07:49 PM
link   
reply to post by Pellevoisin
 


I've seen and agreed with you twice now so I am giving you a star for that.



posted on Jul, 22 2010 @ 07:53 PM
link   
reply to post by Lhuhikwdwoo
 

Voting out ALL incumbents is the only thing that will make a difference because it takes time to train the newbies and get the claws of corruption sunk into them. The more turnover the better.

And somehow we need to get rid of lobbyists and lobbyist and think-tank written laws, and instate strict term limits. People who stay in their seats for decades and do nothing else in life are highly unlikely to vote for term limits, eh?

Congress and the senate were never intended to be full-time jobs and lifelong careers. Turnover is key. Fresh ideas and less corruption.

[edit on 7/22/2010 by ~Lucidity]



posted on Jul, 22 2010 @ 07:57 PM
link   




top topics



 
7
<< 1  2  3    5  6 >>

log in

join