What is Digg?Sponsored by Double Your Dating
Get Her To Pick YOU Up view!
doubleyourdating.com - An easy way to get a woman to start a conversation with you - no fancy lines required...
181 Comments
- inactive, on 10/12/2008, -4/+7635 years ago the Democrats lost power because they expanded the government, got us in a needless and costly war, and caused the economy to melt down with stagflation.
Looks like history has just repeated itself, only this time it was the Republicans endorsing the same policies. - redcolumbine, on 10/12/2008, -9/+76And a chance to show that, without roadblocks impeding them, they really do differ substantively from the Republicans. Let's see!
- apastafarian, on 10/12/2008, -6/+48The ball will be in their court, will they play well or will they beat it, crap all over it and sell it to the highest bidder like the GOP did?
- GoKings, on 10/12/2008, -6/+43This much power in the hands of one party always scares me, but the Repubs have ***** it up so bad anything different is good at this point.
- JoEBlack982, on 10/13/2008, -5/+35Correct me if I'm wrong, but although the prospect of one party with so much dominance is scary, if they have sound policies isn't this a good thing? Easily passing legislation like federally funding stem cell research, decriminalizing drugs and lessening non-violent drug sentences, civil unions for all... etc is a good thing for us that are progressive.
- kingofinternet, on 10/12/2008, -5/+27thanks bush!
- johnnr2, on 10/12/2008, -4/+25Help to get out the vote!
- DangerCollie, on 10/13/2008, -3/+23I'm voting Democratic because of the strangle hold the neo-cons have on the Republican party. Pandering to the religious wingnuts, they deserve to lose.
But if the Democrats don't learn the lesson, start picking up the Republican's corrupt ways, I'll drop them like a hot rock. I'll help get them a veto-proof majority. And I expect them to run the table on the Republicans. If the Dems have 60 votes in the Senate and don't show some nads it's going to be hard to expect anyone to respect them. - m4532v, on 10/13/2008, -1/+20Coming from me it might sound strange however I don't believe there should be that much power without balance. I don't think a Democratic super majority or any super majority is a good thing.
- JHB800, on 10/13/2008, -2/+18It won't end well.
- sfelton, on 10/13/2008, -2/+15Whats this with politics? Super-majority, Super-delegates, Super-Tuesday, etc. Will a Superman soon emerge?
- brstilson, on 10/13/2008, -3/+15Funny you should bring that up, because I think Obama is going to suffer the same fate that Carter did. Here was Jimmy Carter, in charge of cleaning up the utter ***** mess left by the Nixon and Ford years, and he wasn't up to the task.
Michigan is facing a similar situation. Republican John Engler ***** the state's finances over so badly, that the new Democrat Governor Jennifer Granholm is still unable to fix it despite being in the middle of her 2nd term.
I think Obama is going to be a bit more effective than Carter, but Bush ***** this country up a LOT worse than Nixon did. People voted for Carter because of the D next to his name, they wanted "change" regardless of who had the nomination. It'll be interesting to see if Obama can shake off the Carter legacy and really undo what Bush has done these last 8 years. - bonch, on 10/13/2008, -8/+20The race will probably tighten a bit before Election Day. Personally, the idea of a 100% one-party controlled government is scary. The current Democratic Congress has achieved the lowest approval rating in history. I wouldn't be surprised to see the GOP take over again in 2010, just as they did when Clinton became President. All these things go in cycles.
I at least have to hope so. Democrats are all about big government, big spending, and appeasing every special interest group under the sun, and they'll have a blank check. Argh. I bet we even get the scary Fairness Doctrine passed in which the government decides how "fair" your radio station or TV channel is. - masamunecyrus, on 10/13/2008, -1/+12Nancy Pelosi (D) is the current MAJORITY leader, John Boehner (R) is the MINORITY leader. In other words, we're currently viewing how the Democrats play ball in their court, and it's just as horrifying as the GOP.
- tito184, on 10/13/2008, -4/+13I'm not sure if a Democratic House/Senate and President are a good idea. No matter what party you vote for, checks and balances are a good thing. It may take a bit longer to get something done, but it is a good thing in the long run.
- angeladtao, on 10/13/2008, -7/+15I usually would agree that power needs to be spread around for a system to be healthy. However, our system is so corrupt now after 8 years of Bushwacko and Co, that I think that an all Dem majority will be useful to be able to put things to right again. Something will likely happen, and the Dems will lose seats in the mid-term elections. Normalcy will once again be established. I pray to God or the Universe or whatever keeps this whole mess from descending into chaos at once that this will be so.
- livewyre718, on 10/13/2008, -2/+10I actually think it may be a good thing. Nothing really gets accomplished in washington because there's basically a stalemate in the senate and it's hard to get a 60 vote majority( to avoid filibusterer) to get any sweeping policy reforms passed.
I just hope the dems don't let the power go to their heads, but history dictates otherwise. - johnleemk, on 10/13/2008, -0/+8It's hard to define. Eisenhower refused to help the French quell the Viet Minh, which led to their defeat and the creation of North Vietnam. He then later ordered American military advisors to Vietnam, but it was Kennedy who escalated the war further and LBJ who orchestrated the Tonkin Gulf farce.
- bonch, on 10/13/2008, -2/+10I'm sure it will tighten a bit as the month goes on. But yeah, it is a scary thought that one party will control everything. We saw what a problem that was last time. It's going to be the exact same thing as before--a gigantic, expensive government with too much power.
I also have issues with the fact that the same Democrats in Congress who pushed for loans to poor people who couldn't afford to pay them back all in the name of "social justice" are now getting rewarded with even more power despite helping to cause the current crisis. The wildly pro-Obama media sure hasn't tried to objectively inform the public or anything either (you have to be nuts to still believe there's not a liberal media after two years of gushing, non-critical Obama coverage). McCain was actually the most centrist, bipartisan candidate in decades--at least, according to a Washington Post investigation of his record--but there's no way the media was going to give him a fair shot. People are just tired of Republicans anyway.
At any rate, it's a bad time to be a free market-lovin', small-government libertarian. World markets have handed their banks over to their governments to bail them out, and an inexperienced celeb-politician with a liberal record is set to establish a 100% Democrat-controlled government with Nancy Pelosi. Hope you guys are ready for an EVEN BIGGER government than under Bush. At least with McCain in office and the Democrats in Congress, there would have been compromise between parties for the good of the country. With the impending one-party government next year, Republicans wouldn't even have enough seats to launch investigations into any inevitable scandals that always arise during every administration. No oversight. :( Scary. - iloveobama, on 10/13/2008, -9/+17Yes, the democratic senate who voted overwhelmingly yes for the bailout plan! They clearly know what they're doing. Way to go
- Baldar, on 10/13/2008, -1/+9Thats amazing, out of his 14 vetoes (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_United_States ... ), 500 of them were sent by the democratic congress.
Math > Diggers, I guess... - JayD16, on 10/13/2008, -0/+7Its a tie in the Senate. It is also certainly not enough to overturn a veto.
- rottencod, on 10/13/2008, -2/+92008 - 1958 = 60 ?
Apparently, our education system needs to teach less creationism and more math. - bonch, on 10/13/2008, -3/+10People weren't opposed to stem cell research. It was embryonic stem cell research they opposed. Now we have the capability of obtaining the cells from adults, so the point is moot. Decriminalization of drugs is too non-mainstream to ever happen.
I'm not saying I'd vote McCain, but he and other Republicans can't even get their message out to let people know they tried to stop the crisis years ago, because the media is totally hostile to Republicans this year. I normally wouldn't care, but the party that helped create the problem is getting away scott-free...it's a little twisted. It's just a scary thought to me that the party who caused the mess is getting rewarded for it and that there appears to be such tight coupling with the media. I mean, top Democrats actually ran Fannie Mae for a while.
Coupled with a candidate like Obama who has not been vetted to the degree that McCain or Hillary Clinton have been, and there is the potential for a supermajority administration with no oversight, no dissent, and corruption. If you're someone who isn't emotionally invested in one side or the other, it's just a little frightening.
All that said, the race isn't over. Looking at Drudge Report right now, the polls show the race tightening again. And let's not forget our history. Jimmy Carter was ahead in the polls against Reagan until the very weekend before Election Day. Anything can happen. Even so, I do NOT want a one-party government again...whoever wins the Presidency, I'd like the other party to win the Congress. - masamunecyrus, on 10/13/2008, -1/+8Take a look at this map of the 2004 election in Illinois:
http://www.uselectionatlas.org/RESULTS/state.php?y ...
For reasons I don't understand, Blue is GOP and red is Democrat. Out of 102 counties, 15 voted for Kerry. Those fifteen counties had SUCH a population that the entire state went Kerry by more than 10%. 14% of the state gave Kerry more than a 10% lead. In Illinois, if you don't agree with Chicago, you might as well not vote. Even if everyone else in the state votes with you, Chicago will outnumber you making your vote worthless.
Without the electoral college, imagine this on a national level. The ENTIRE country could go one color, but if New York, San Francisco, Los Angeles, Boston, the big cities voted a different color, the election would go to their color in a landslide victory. If you didn't agree with the huge cities, your vote is not just unimportant, it's totally useless. Imagine if you DID live in a state like Wyoming with a population of around 500,000. Your vote would be so completely and utterly worthless, you'd probably see the percentage of voters drop into the low teens or maybe even the single digits.
The electoral college is made to protect the minority from the tyranny of the majority. It's an overused phrase, but it's true. Go try to support Obama on FOX News, or try to support McCain on MSNBC, you'll be ridiculed and made to look like an idiot an will probably receive hundreds of death threats. This is the tyranny of the majority and it's very real. - fuzzynyanko, on 10/13/2008, -2/+8I'm not 100% sure if they've got it in the bag. A lot of the government hold-ups were due to both the House and Senate having a near 50/50 seating by both parties, and some people are blaming Democrats.
- TSK05, on 10/13/2008, -9/+15Sound policies? The chief Democrat on this bailout (Barney Frank), head of the Financial Services Committee, blocked oversight that Bush and McCain proposed for Fannie and Freddie in 2003 because "The more people exaggerate these issues, the more it reduces the commitment of these companies to affordable housing. Fannie and Freddie are not facing any problems."
The Democrats also pushed the affordable lending policies which allowed (and in some cases forced) banks to make loans to people who couldn't pay them back. Something about "everyone should be able to afford a house." - ScottMitchell, on 10/13/2008, -1/+7Truman (a Democrat) was the first President to stick his nose in Vietnam, giving the French $150 million of support to fight the Communist factions. And while Eisenhower gave aircraft support to the South Vietnamese, it wasn't until Kennedy (a Democrat) that the first US troops landed in Vietnam, and it was Kennedy and Johnson (another Dem) who greatly escalated the war.
True, Nixon continued the war effort, but we got into the mess under the auspices of the Democrats. - ericdano, on 10/13/2008, -2/+8Funny how people forget these things. Barney Frank. What a clown. Part of the problem that one.
Just another reason people should vote for NEW people. Not these clowns who have been in office forever. - TheInformer, on 10/13/2008, -2/+8Ask the people from 1980 how the previous 4 years went.
- ericdano, on 10/13/2008, -6/+11Personally, I'm voting all my incumbents out. Nancy Pelosi, Feinstein, Boxer. All of them. They promised change 2 years ago, and have not done ANYTHING at all. They have rubber stamped everything. And they have provided a bailout to their banking buddies.
No thanks. When I get my ballot, next week or the week after (absentee), anyone who is already in office is getting voted out. Period. - bonch, on 10/13/2008, -1/+6He's referring to the "affordable lending policies" that Democrats enforced on banks to get them to hand out loans to poor people who couldn't pay them back, leading to the bubble burst. McCain and other Republicans actually warned about this in 2003 but were blocked by Barney Frank. SNL referenced this in their skit a few weeks ago. That's not to say Republicans didn't also try to take credit for the initial boom afterward.
- inactive, on 10/13/2008, -0/+5The bad loans weren't forced on people, that's not what we're saying. If you're trying to bait a class warfare thing, go look somewhere else. The Democrats legislated BANKS into taking the bad loans that Fannie and Freddie were handing out like Halloween candy. They also included regulations that allowed people to declare unemployment and WIC as income streams, but also prevented banks from asking minorities about their credit history, credit worthiness, or income verification. I'm not only holding Democrats at fault, but they are the most culpable in this mess. So you really should rethink your high and mighty "I've said it before and I'll say it again: blaming "affordable lending policies" for the meltdown is like blaming kindling for a fire", because it just makes you sound like an ignorant elistist wannabe to anyone else who knows better.
- inactive, on 10/13/2008, -1/+6Thanks Bonch! Exactly, but it was Barney Frank, Chris Dodd, and Maxine Waters who are the primary suspects. And if you look at the lobbying, who got what and how much, it was Democrats who recieved most of the money. As a matter of fact, Barry was second on the recipient list! You can unbury me now.
- PabloMac, on 10/13/2008, -3/+8"…our system is so corrupt now after 8 years of Bushwacko and Co…"
Yeah, it wasn't corrupt before then. - JHB800, on 10/13/2008, -3/+8Or, maybe people, you know, don't like what they're trying to pass?
- jbmcb, on 10/13/2008, -0/+5All the people shouting in the 2000 elections on how we need a balanced power arrangement between the legislative and executive branches are curiously silent these days...
- iloveobama, on 10/13/2008, -9/+14Democrats are desperately trying to pass the Fairness Doctrine which will allow the government to regulate how "fair" a TV or radio station is.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Fairness_Doctrine - metaliq, on 10/13/2008, -1/+6What about the Republicans and their last 8 years of control?
Hmm... two versus eight.... Hmm... - TheInformer, on 10/13/2008, -5/+9When the legislative and executive branches are both controlled by one party, it ends in disaster.
- vtnerd, on 10/13/2008, -9/+13Watch out 2nd Amendment. Obama and Co. are coming to get ya.
Jokes aside, Obama does oppose concealed carry and handgun ownership. He also supports unconstitutional gun bans like the one in DC and the one in Illinois. Now, in fairness to Obama, he does respect your right to kill furry animals in the woods but that's the only thing Obama believes you should be able to use a gun for. He does not respect your right to self-defense and he does not truly support the 2nd Amendment.
I'm not saying to vote McCain or to vote Republican (I hate both parties equally - they're all on the other side and it's politicians vs. citizens in this country) but just shedding some light on one negative aspect of a Democratic rise to power.
I now anticipate being quickly buried by the Democratic supporters for saying anything even remotely negative about Obama - despite my words being truth and not hyperbole. - bonch, on 10/13/2008, -0/+4More like a superstorm. I think George Carlin was right. We're circling the drain, and the orbits around the hole are getting faster.
- rjn17960, on 10/13/2008, -3/+7At the very least, they'll be able to have a majority without the repugnant Lieberman. Getting to 60 without him would be an added bonus. That guy needs to be stripped of power and mocked daily for the remainder of his term.
- inactive, on 10/13/2008, -3/+7Pelosi and company have sucked mightily the past two years, but they sure as hell aren't to blame for the corruption we've seen in the republican party, nor are they to blame for the economy.
Those who can't remember the past are condemned to repeat it. m2garand said it perfectly.
I'm a liberal and clearly think and see their world through that prism. But--the problem started with Reagan in 1980. Once he was elected he began to deregulate everything. He also ushered in the neocon movement, using the evangelicals in this nation to shore up the reptard base. All he and his cronies had to do along the way was promise the evangelicals a few little things in exchange for their votes: outlawing abortion, rattling the sabres about guns and how liberals want to take them away (we never did), and returning America to "simpler times" when the only choice a woman had was to stay home and cook and clean and raise kids, and when ethnic minorities didn't even have the right to vote and were victims of institutionalized racism and frequent/random violence. Remember separate but equal? Them was the good ol' days!
This continued throughout the 80s and into the early 90s via poppa Bush. Don't forget the trickle down theory of economics. Did that trickle ever get even remotely close to any of you? It sure as hell came no where near me and my family. During the Reagan/poppa Bush years, Dems were in the majority, but everything they tried to do was vetoed by Ronnie, who, toward the end of his second term, was "leading" this nation in spite of the hidden fact that he was already in the throes of Alzheimers.
In comes Bill Clinton, thank God, in 1993, but less than two years later the reptard revolution in the congress occurred, again, under the cloak of good ol' traditional family values (read: outlaw abortion, rattle sables about guns and gays, and insist on a return to a simpler time when women's only choice was to...). So, in spite of a hostile house and senate, Bill Clinton was able to build a nation of prosperity and growth. In the face of a hostile house and senate, Bill Clinton was a successful president. Who gives a ***** if Monica blew him in the Oval office. If I'm having surgery and I have the choice of two physicians, one really nice guy but a clueless hack and the other a total dick weed but a brilliant surgeon, I'd go with the dickweed who's a brilliant surgeon. Bill Clinton was and is brilliant, even if he always has a wowser in his trousers.
So in comes that sad ass mother ***** George W. and his evil monkey clown Cheney. The executive office is reptard, the Supreme court has a conservative majority (including Coke and pubic hairs Clarence Thomas, who, by the way, called his confirmation hearings a lynch mob--I sure didn't hear any reptards bellyaching about some black guy calling the race card then!), and the house and senate have a reptard majority.
And here we are today.
So it's a bit of an understatement to say that the Democrats/liberals had nothing to do with the current mess we're in, save for their pussy footing around in the house and senate the past couple of years. Hopefully they'll grow a pair with a Democrat in the White House.
In theory, the "power" needs to be spread around. In reality it leads to gridlock if it is.
As for the bailout vote--I'm pissed that my tax dollars are being used to fund the corporate greed and corruption that took advantage of people like me (no, I don't own a house, but theoretically speaking, people in my age and income bracket were the ones who got hit the worst with subprime mortgages. I'm equally pissed at anyone who voted for the bailout. But I'm also wise enough to know this isn't the end of that debate, and any action on it. And I might add that plenty of reptars voted for the bailout. I was surprised so many Dems did--Dems are generally not the party of big business. It's an economic mess that, truly, most of us can't understand fully.
Bottom line: the mess we're in now has nothing to do with liberal policies or politicians. It has everything to do with the neocons and their greed and corruption.
On a personal note--I hope Al Franken gets elected. I hope he swears in saying, "me, Al Franken". We need someone with a sense of humor on the hill. - JHB800, on 10/13/2008, -6/+10By your line of reasoning, I could also say the same about progressives:
They're racist (their German ideological heritage was unkind to minorities)
They would have gotten rid of the constitution if they could have
They think everyday people are too dumb to govern themselves
They think that the only way out of any situation is more taxes and more government
They would have been perfectly fine with a communist US
We both know the above aren't true, for either of our posts, so why even post yours? - thayanmarsh, on 10/13/2008, -0/+4I think that it would open up the game for a third party just out of despiration. I don't think that a 2 year super majority would be so bad. It would allow for differentiations to develop within the dems and the opposition would either have to stay united or allow for thrid parties to rise up and replace the republican party. Populists anyone?
- jbmcb, on 10/13/2008, -0/+4@brstilsonbrstilson -
Not to thread-jack, but Grandholm as done jack squat to fix the Michigan economy. Under her administration Michigan has lost Pfizer, Volkswagen, Comerica, Sears/K-Mart, dozens of large factories and hundreds of smaller job shops.
Blaming the official before you is a popular tactic for ineffective incumbents, but it only works for so long. It's been over six years, and Michigan's' economy has gotten significantly worse - the "blame Engler" tactic doesn't work anymore. - drex8, on 10/13/2008, -5/+9Though Obama, from various polls, seems ahead, some pundits contend that the Presidential race still looks like a close one from some angles. In that respect, and if history is any guide, San Jose Mercury News debates this topic: "What if McCain-Obama race ends up in a tie vote in the Electoral College?" http://www.mercurynews.com/ci_10699853?source=most ...
In that respect, how fair is the Electoral College voting system?
FTA: "The Constitution's founders devised the Electoral College to protect small states. Each state's vote is determined by the number of House members plus senators.
As the most populous state, California seems to have great weight with 55 electoral votes. But that's one electoral vote for every 663,000 residents, compared with one vote for every 174,000 residents of Wyoming.
That means the campaigns don't spend much time or money in California and the other 39 states. Voters in those states were taken for granted long ago."
"Campbell, a Republican says: "There's a fundamental unfairness there. Why should a vote for president count more in New Hampshire than California?""
Some say, ""Maybe this is another reason to ask why we still have this antiquated system."
"The Electoral College is in the back of everyone's minds," Koza said. A tie "would show just how badly we need to change this."
For more information, www.archives.gov/federal-register/electoral-college http://www.nationalpopularvote.com/ - ericdano, on 10/13/2008, -1/+5Seriously. No thanks people who have office right now. People who have been there for decades. Pelosi. Feinstein. Boxer. McCain. Biden. Kennedy. All these people need to be voted out and we need fresh blood in there.
- MadOgre, on 10/13/2008, -2/+6Yeah, if they try harder they can drop that approval rating to below 5%!
-
Show 51 - 100 of 185 discussions
© Digg Inc. 2009
— Content created and posted by Digg users is